In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of Maitreyee Chakraborty, an Assistant Professor at Tripura University, who was denied confirmation despite satisfactory service and the vacation of a lien on her post. The judgment, delivered by Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, set aside the decisions of both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Tripura High Court, which had earlier dismissed Chakraborty’s plea. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle that public authorities must act fairly and honor their promises, especially when dealing with individuals’ careers.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around Maitreyee Chakraborty, who was appointed as an Assistant Professor in Law at Tripura University in January 2017. Her appointment was against a lien vacancy, which was expected to be regularized upon the vacation of the lien, provided her performance was satisfactory. Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra, who held the lien on the post, resigned from the university in September 2017, thereby vacating the lien.
However, despite Chakraborty’s continued satisfactory performance over seven years, the Executive Council of the University resolved in its 32nd meeting on December 13, 2018, not to confirm her appointment. Instead, it decided to re-advertise the post. This decision was communicated to Chakraborty, who then sought reasons for her non-confirmation but received none. Her writ petition challenging this decision was dismissed by the Single Judge, and the Division Bench upheld the dismissal.
Legal Issues Involved
The central legal issues in this case were:
1. Arbitrariness in Administrative Decisions: Whether the decision of the Tripura University to deny confirmation to Chakraborty was arbitrary and violated the principle of legitimate expectation.
2. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: Whether Chakraborty had a legitimate expectation of being confirmed in her post once the lien was vacated, given her satisfactory performance and the terms of her appointment.
3. Fairness and Non-Arbitrariness: Whether the University’s decision to re-advertise the post, instead of confirming Chakraborty, was in accordance with the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness expected from public authorities.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Observations
The Supreme Court’s judgment was scathing in its criticism of the Universityโs actions. The Court found that the Universityโs decision to deny confirmation and re-advertise the post was “delightfully vague” and offered no justification. The judgment emphasized that the discretion vested in the Executive Council should be exercised in a fair and non-arbitrary manner.
The Court observed, “The discretion vested in the Executive Council should be exercised in a fair and non-arbitrary manner. It cannot be based on the whim and caprice of the decision-making authority. If asked to justify, the Executive Council must have good reasons to defend the exercise of power. In this case, alas, there are none.”
The Court further highlighted the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which holds that public authorities, when performing their duties, ought to honor their promises or past practices. In this case, the employment notice, the Resolution of the Executive Council, and the appointment order all gave rise to a legitimate expectation that Chakraborty would be continued in service and regularized in her post once the lien was vacated.
The judgment also referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Sivanandan C.T. vs. High Court of Kerala, reiterating that public authorities have a duty to treat individuals in a fair and non-arbitrary manner. The Court found that the University’s decision was not based on any overriding public interest and thus could not outweigh Chakrabortyโs legitimate expectation of confirmation.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgments and the Universityโs resolution denying confirmation to Chakraborty. The Court directed the University to place her case for confirmation before the Executive Council within four weeks and to provide her with all consequential benefits.
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Number: Civil Appeal No. _____ of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 16944 of 2022]
– Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice J.K. Maheshwari
– Appellant: Maitreyee Chakraborty
– Respondents: The Tripura University & Ors.
– Lawyers: Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi for the Appellant, Mr. Sujeet Kumar for the Respondent University.
– Judgment Date: 22nd August 2024
