HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21629 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :

HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI

==========================================================

1

Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?

2

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3

Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?

4

Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================

PATEL MANOJ PRAKASHBHAI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY (GNLU)....Respondent(s)
==========================================================

Appearance :
MR KB PUJARA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DC DAVE, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR.UDAYAN P VYAS, ADVOCATE
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

CORAM
:

HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI

Date : 17/04/2017

Page 1 of 57
Page 1 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

CAV JUDGMENT

1. By   way   of   present   petition   preferred   under 
Articles   14,   16,   19,   21   and   226   of   the 
Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed 
for the following substantial reliefs :
“12(b) 

to quash and set aside the impugned 

action   of   the   respondent   in   seeking   to 
orally terminate the petitioner's employment 
on 31.12.2016 even though as per the letter 
of appointment dated 31.12.2013 at Annexure­
D the petitioner has been given appointment 
as

 

“Head

 

Budget,

 

Accounts

 

& 

Finance/Assistant   Finance   Officer”   in   the 
pay­scale of Rs.15,600­39100 with grade pay 
of Rs.5400/­ upto 31.12.2019;
(c)

to hold and declare and direct that the 

petitioner   is   entitled   to   continue   in   the 
employment   of   the   respondent   as   “Head 
Budget, Accounts & Finance/Assistant Finance 
Officer” in the pay­scale of Rs.15,600­39100 
with grade pay of Rs.5400/­ upto 31.12.2019 
as   per   the   letter   of   appointment 
dtd.31.12.2013   at   Annexure­D,   and   even 
thereafter   until   he   reaches   the   age   of 
superannuation of 58 years;”

Page 2 of 57
Page 2 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

2. The   factual   score   that   is   essential   to   be 
depicted   is   that   pursuant   to   an   advertisement 
issued   by   the   respondent­Gujarat   National   Law 
University   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the 
University’)   for   the   post   of   “Head   Budget, 
Accounts & Finance/Assistant Finance Officer” in 
the pay­scale of Rs.15600­39100 with grade pay of 
Rs.5400/­ initially for a period of five years' 
duration   depending   upon   the   performance   of   the 
incumbent   and   the   need   of   the   University,   the 
petitioner herein applied for the said post. He 
underwent the requisite process of selection and 
was   duly   selected   for   getting   the   appointment 
letter dated January 02, 2012.
2.1 This   letter   offered   him   the   fixed   term   of 
appointment, subject to the Regulations of the 
University and the changes that may be made in 
the   Regulations   from   time   to   time.   This 
provided   him   the   pay­scale   of   Rs.9300­34800 
with grade pay of Rs.4600/­. It was mentioned 
that on successful completion of three years' 
period, his service may be placed in the pay­
scale   of   Rs.15600­39100   with   grade   pay   of 
Page 3 of 57
Page 3 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

Rs.5400/­. His first year out of the five years 
was   to   be   considered   for   probation.   His 
appointment was to expire without prior notice 
on   the   expiration   of   the   fixed   period.   Thus, 
depending upon the need of the University, the 
performance records of the petitioner and any 
other criteria fixed by the Executive Council 
of   the   University   from   time   to   time,   his 
appointment was to be governed.
2.2 Since   he   joined   duty   on   January   02,   2012, 
one year was to expire on January 02, 2013. On 
completion of probation period of one year, he 
received   a   letter   dated   January   24,   2013,   of 
completion   of   probation,   where   the   University 
confirmed five years' contract with effect from 
commencement   of   his   service,   subject   to   the 
terms   and   conditions   as   per   his   letter   of 
appointment.   He   made   a   request   to   the 
respondent­authority to grant him the pay­scale 
originally   advertised   being   the   pay­scale   of 
Rs.15600­39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/­ from 
January 01, 2013.

Page 4 of 57
Page 4 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

2.3 On December 31, 2013, a letter was issued to 
the   petitioner   by   the   respondent­University 
being the letter of appointment offering fixed 
term   appointment   where   the   effective   date   of 
appointment was January 01, 2014 and the expiry 
date was December 31, 2019. It also indicated 
that such appointment would be for a period of 
five   years   with   one   year   probation   and   the 
appointment   would   expire   without   prior   notice 
on expiration date. He accepted the letter of 
appointment on December 31, 2013. 
2.4 Yet   another   letter   dated   December   31,   2013 
was communicated to the petitioner in response 
to his earlier communication dated January 29, 
2013,   which   was   regarding   change   in   his   pay­
scale   by   granting   him   the   pay­scale   of 
Rs.15600­39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/­ with 
effect   from   January   01,   2014   with   one   year 
probation. The rest of the terms and conditions 
remained   the   same   as   his   earlier   appointment 
letter   dated   January   02,   2012.   It   also 
clarified that the original date of joining of 
the   petitioner   on   the   position   of   the   “Head 
Page 5 of 57
Page 5 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

Budget,   Accounts   &  Finance/   Assistant   Finance 
Officer”  i.e.   January   02,   2012,   would   be 
utilised for the purpose of calculation of his 
service,   accepting   the  financial   benefits   and 
in the event of any inconsistency between the 
terms of his appointment and Regulations of the 
University,   the   Regulations   of   the   University 
shall prevail. 
2.5 The   grievance   of   the   petitioner   began   on 
October   21,   2016,   when   he   was   called   by   the 
Director of the University intimating him that 
his   contract   was   to   be   over   on   December   31, 
2016 as per the letter dated January 02, 2012 
and  a  reference  of  December  31,   2017,  in  the 
first letter was a typographical error. He was 
also communicated that the advertisement was to 
be   shortly   issued   for   the   post   of   Section 
Officer(Accounts) in the pay­scale of Rs.9300­
34800  with   grade  pay  of  Rs.4200/­  and  he  may 
choose to apply and his salary will be based on 
the fitment formula, so that he would not have 
issue of financial loss. He was also given to 
understand   that   for   ending   his   contract,   a 
Page 6 of 57
Page 6 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

notice was to be issued shortly. This came as a 
surprise   to   the   petitioner.   He   raised   an 
objection and conveyed that his contract was to 
be   over   on   December   31,   2019   and   not   on 
December 31, 2016. 
2.6 It   is   the   say   of   the   petitioner   that 
eventually, the thought of issuance of end of 
contract   notice,   was   also   given   up.   The 
petitioner   approached   this   Court   as   he 
apprehended   termination   of   his   service   before 
December 31, 2019. He, however, has averred in 
the petition that on October 27, 2016, for the 
post of Section Officer (Accounts) in the pay­
scale   of   Rs.9300­34800   with   grade   pay   of 
Rs.4200/­, which is a post lower than the post 
held   by   the   petitioner   in   the   pay­scale   of 
Rs.15600­39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/­, an 
advertisement   has   been   published   by   the 
University and he applied for the said post and 
appeared in the written test held on November 
29, 2016 and he is the only person shortlisted 
for the interview and he appeared on November 
30, 2016 for such interview.
Page 7 of 57
Page 7 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

2.7 He,   however,   has   urged   that   this 
participation   has   nothing   to   do   with   the 
challenge   to   the   alleged   illegal   inaction   on 
the   part   of   the   University   in   ending   his 
employment   prior   to   completion   of   contractual 
period.   In   the   aforesaid   facts   and 
circumstances,   he   has   approached   this   Court 
apprehending his termination.

3. An   affidavit­in­reply   on   behalf   of   the 
respondent­University   has   been   filed   by   the 
Registrar,   who   does   not   dispute   the   factum   of 
selection of the petitioner in the year 2012 on 
the   post   of   “Head

 Budget,   Accounts   & 

Finance/Assistant Finance Officer”.  However, the 
version   of   the   University   is   that   the   petition 
suffers   from   the   vice   of  suppressio   veri   and 
suggestio falsi  as the material facts have been 
suppressed   by   the   petitioner.   According   to   the 
respondent­University,   pursuant   to   the   first 
advertisement   dated   September   16,   2011,   the 
petitioner was offered the post of “Head Budget, 
Accounts & Finance/Assistant Finance Officer” for 
Page 8 of 57
Page 8 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

a fixed term of five years. Consequent upon his 
acceptance   of   the   said   offer,   a   letter   of 
appointment was issued in his favour on January 
02, 2012, which also mentioned that it was for a 
fixed term of five years on the said post with a 
condition   that   on   his   successful   completion   of 
three years, he may be placed in the pay­scale of 
Rs.15600­39100   with   grade   pay   of   Rs.5400/­.   His 
first   year   since   was   for   probation,   it   was 
clearly   mentioned   that   this   fixed   term   may   be 
extended   as   per   the   Rules   of   the   University, 
performance   criteria   as   may   be   fixed   by   the 
Executive   Council.   The   letter   dated   January   02, 
2012, reflects the effective date of appointment 
and   expiration   date   of   appointment   is   indicated 
as   December   31,   2017,   instead   of   January   01, 
2017. According to the respondent, from the stand 
point   of   administrative   convenience   of   the 
respondent, December 31 in place of January 01, 
was   to   be   mentioned   in   the   said   letter   of 
appointment   and   in   that   case,   it   would   be 
December 31, 2016 and instead a mistake crept in 
which is “of a most trifling nature”. 

Page 9 of 57
Page 9 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

3.1 Upon   completion   of   period   of   one   year   of 
probation,   when   the   respondent­University 
issued the letter of appointment on January 24, 
2013, the petitioner made a representation on 
January 29, 2013, seeking to grant him the pay­
scale   of   Rs.15600­39100   with   grade   pay   of 
Rs.5400/­ with effect from January 01, 2013 and 
due to his persistence requests, he was granted 
the said pay­scale in the very second year. The 
letter   dated   December   31,   2013,   was   issued 
informing about acceptance of his request, with 
effect   from   January   01,   2014   with   one   year 
probation and with other terms and conditions 
as stipulated in the letter dated January 02, 
2012. It is further his say that the issuance 
of fresh letter of appointment was unwarranted. 
The   respondent   also   committed   mistake   by 
issuing another letter dated December 31, 2013, 
which erroneously mentioned the effective date 
of   appointment   as   January   01,   2014   and 
expiration date to be December 31, 2019.

Page 10 of 57
Page 10 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

3.2  It has been emphasised in the affidavit­in­
reply that the term of the appointment was five 
years with one year probation, which was  very 
much a part of the initial advertisement and it 
was   mentioned   that   in   the   event   of   any 
inconsistency or conflict between the terms of 
appointment   and   the   regulations   of   the 
respondent­University,   the   regulations   of   the 
respondent­University   shall   prevail.   It   is 
further urged as under :
“9.  ..   ..   Assuming   without   admitting   that 
another   Letter   of   Appointment   dated   31st 
December, 2013 was required to be issued to 
the   Petitioner   and   accordingly   it   was  
issued, the concerned administration of the 
Respondent   University   committed   the   same 
error   of   calculating   Expiration   Date   of 
Appointment at 31st  December, 2019 by adding 
fixed   term   of   5   years   in   the   year   2014   as  
was   committed   in   the   previous   Letter   of 
Appointment   dated   2nd  January,   2012   by 
ignoring   the   fact   that   the   date   of 
Appointment   of   the   Petitioner   being   stated 
as 1st  January, 2014, the whole of the year  
2014   together   with   year   2015,   year   2016, 
year 2017 and year 2018 would end the term 
of   the   Petitioner   for   5   years   on   31st 
Page 11 of 57
Page 11 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

December,   2018   and   not   on   31st  December, 
2019. However, even these mistakes have also  
gone   unnoticed   from   the   attention   of   the 
Respondent.”
3.3   It   is   further   urged   that   this   letter   of 
appointment   dated   December   31,   2013,   shall 
neither   be   considered   as   extending   a   further 
period   of   five   years   nor   shall   be   appointing 
the petitioner afresh for a fixed term of five 
years from January 01, 2014. Unless and until 
the original term of five years comes to an end 
or expires, there would not be any question of 
second letter of appointment. Rather than the 
contents, the form of letter of appointment has 
been   emphasised.   It   is   also   urged   that   the 
second letter of appointment dated December 31, 
2013, would not give rise to the right of the 
petitioner to continue till December 31, 2019. 
3.4 It   is   also   further   contended   that   he   when 
participated in the recruitment process for the 
post of Section Officer (Accounts) pursuant to 
the Advertisement bearing No.1/2015 in the set 
up   of   Swarnim   Gujarat   Sports   University, 

Page 12 of 57
Page 12 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

Gandhinagar, he has not referred to the letter 
of appointment dated December 31, 2013, as such 
an   application   was   forwarded   through   the 
Registrar   of   the   respondent­University.   It   is 
further   his   say   that   the   Director   of   the 
respondent   when   was   reviewing   the   appointment 
of   the   employees   in   the   set   up   of   the 
respondent­University on contractual basis, it 
was   realised   that   the   expiry   date   of 
appointment   was   December   31,   2016   and   it   was 
wrongly   typed   as   December   31,   2017.   The 
petitioner was also intimated of such mistake 
by   the   Director   himself   in   presence   of   the 
Registrar and others, which was the reason as 
to   why   he   participated   in   the   process   of 
recruitment   for   the   post   of   Section   Officer 
(Accounts)   in   non­teaching   category.   In   the 
column   of   experience,   he   has   mentioned 
experience of “4 years, 10 months and 14 days”. 
3.5 It is further contended that the appointment 
letter dated January 02, 2012, states that the 
appointment   shall   expire   without   prior   notice 
on expiration date. There was no assurance to 
Page 13 of 57
Page 13 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

convert contractual  appointment into permanent 
appointment.   The   issue   of   conversion   of 
contractual   appointment   into   permanent 
appointment   was   considered   by   the   Executive 
Council and the General Council. 
3.6 In   the   9th  General   Council   Meeting   held   on 
January   19,   2013,   the   Committee   was   to   be 
constituted to examine the issue of conversion 
of   contractual   appointment   into   permanent 
appointment   and   place   the   recommendations 
before the next General Council Meeting  inter 
alia  on  the   basis   of  policy   of   conversion   of 
contractual   appointments   into   permanent 
appointments approved by the Executive Council. 
A   Permanent   Appointment   Committee   was 
constituted   to   look   into   the   issue   and   the 
recommendations were placed in the 13th Meeting 
of   the   General   Council   held   on   February   14, 
2015,   wherein   it   was   resolved   that   the 
Committee   entrusted   to   examine   the   issue   of 
conversion shall also frame the guidelines to 
the effect that teaching and non­teaching staff 
appointed against permanent posts are subjected 
Page 14 of 57
Page 14 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

to annual performance review and in  case such 
staff   fail   to   meet   the   expected   performance 
standard   of   the   University,   the   services   of 
such staff member shall be terminated from the 
permanent   appointment.   The   guidelines   were 
framed to ensure the same.  
3.7 This   Permanent   Appointment   Committee   also 
added   two   members   and   it   also   recommended   to 
the   General   Council   to   ratify   the 
recommendations   and   amendments   in   its   5th 
Meeting   dated   March   10,   2015.   It   has   been 
decided   that   the   University   shall   conduct 
recruitment against the permanent post through 
fresh advertisement and in conformity with the 
regulations   and   norms   prescribed   by   the 
University Grants Commission and the Government 
of Gujarat respectively. Such appointment shall 
be approved by the Executive Council. The staff 
serving on 5 years' contract shall continue to 
serve and at the end of 5 years, their services 
shall   end.   They   shall   not   have   any   right   of 
extension or renewal of the contract. The said 
Minutes   of   the   5th  Meeting   of   the   Permanent 
Page 15 of 57
Page 15 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

Appointment  Committee   was   to   be   adopted   and 
given   effect   to   in   the   form   of   circular 
resolution to be passed in the General Council. 
3.8 The Director of the respondent forwarded the 
circular resolution to the Visitor and Members 
of   the   General   Council   for   approval   on   March 
19, 2015, however, it was expressed that such 
resolutions   cannot   be   passed   by   way   of 
circulation and eventually, it was put up for 
discussion   in   the   form   of   agenda   in   the   14th 
Meeting of the General Council held on February 
27, 2016, wherein such a report was approved as 
a whole.
3.9 It   is   further   contended   that   a   detailed 
representation   had   been   made   by   the   teaching 
and non­teaching staff members to the Members 
of   the   General   Council   requesting   the 
respondent­University   to   regularise   their 
service.   The   petitioner   is   one   of   the 
signatories   of   such   representation   made   on 
March   27,   2016.   His   participation   in   the 
subsequent   process   of   selection   of   Section 

Page 16 of 57
Page 16 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

Officer (Accounts) is also vindicating the fact 
that he is aware of his appointment coming to 
end on December 31, 2016.
4. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the 
petitioner urging therein that this fixed term of 
appointment   since   was   to   be   extended   depending 
upon the needs of the respondent­University, the 
performance   of   the   petitioner   and   on   any   other 
criteria,   there   is   no   reason   warranting 
termination   of   the   contract   of   the   petitioner. 
Reliance   is   placed   on   the   decision   of   the   Apex 
Court   rendered   in   the   case   of  Kumari   Shrilekha  
Vidyarthi,   etc.   v.   State   of   U.P.   and   others, 
reported in AIR 1991 SC 537, as also the decision 
of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in 
the   case   of  Delhi   Transport   Corporation   v. 
D.T.C.  Mazdoor Congress  and others, reported in 
AIR 1991 SC 101. It is urged that the action of 
ending   the   term   of   the   petitioner   is   grossly 
arbitrary   action   which   deserves   interference   at 
the hands of this Court.

Page 17 of 57
Page 17 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

5. This   Court   has   heard   extensively   the   learned 
counsel appearing for both the sides. They have 
consented for deciding the matter finally at an 
admission stage.
6. Shri   K.B.   Pujara,   learned   counsel   appearing   for 
the petitioner, urged that the action on the part 
of   the   respondent­University   is   arbitrary   and 
illegal. According to him, even if the breach of 
contract entitles a person to get the damages by 
way   of   civil   action,   the   respondent­University 
which is functioning as the 'State' under Article 
12   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   deserves   to 
introspect and watch its conduct. It cannot act 
arbitrarily and in violation of the terms of the 
contract. When the initial appointment itself had 
permitted   extension   as   per   the   need   and 
performance,   and   so   also   on   any   other   criteria 
that may be set out by the Committee, nothing had 
happened to end the contract. Without any rhyme 
or reason, such a harsh step is taken. He relied 
upon the decisions as mentioned in the rejoinder 
affidavit.

Page 18 of 57
Page 18 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

7. Shri D.C. Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing 
with the learned counsel Shri Udyan Vyas for the 
respondent­University, has urged that what is far 
more important in such matters is the intent of 
the   parties.   From   the   beginning   in   the 
advertisement, the term of five years was fixed 
and   thereafter   also,   periodically   it   has   been 
made   very   clear   as   to   what   the   respondent­
University had desired was the fixed term of five 
years.   Inadvertently   in   both   the   letters   as 
explained in the affidavit­in­reply in detail, a 
typographical   error   had   emerged   and   the 
petitioner all along knew about such error. Not 
only he made an application for participating in 
the recruitment process, but also referred to his 
term coming to an end in December, 2016 and also 
participated in the fresh process. 
7.1 It   is   urged   by   the   learned   Senior   Counsel 
that in the case of teaching and non­teaching 
staff, the contractual appointment was not to 
be   converted   into   the   permanent   appointment 
and, hence, any employee is pained or aggrieved 
by the action of the employer is free to choose 
Page 19 of 57
Page 19 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

to   take   recourse   available   under   the   law.   In 
the   matter   of   contractual   appointment,   this 
Court   may   not   interfere   and   may   not   exercise 
extraordinary jurisdiction. He relied upon the 
following authorities in support of his version 
:

(i)

Banchhanidhi   Rath   v.   The   State   of   Orissa  

and others, reported in AIR 1972 SC 843.
(ii)

Executive   Committee   of   Vaish   Degree  

College, Shamli and others v. Lakshmi Narain and  
others, reported in (1976) 2 SCC 58.
(iii)

Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi, 

reported in (2004) 3 SCC 172.
(iv)

Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others, 

reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1.
(v)

Gridco  Ltd. and another  v. Sadananda  Doloi  

and others, reported in AIR 2012 SC 729.
8. The question that arises for consideration before 
this   Court   is   as   to   whether   the   contractual 

Page 20 of 57
Page 20 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

appointment   on   the   post   of  

 “Head   Budget, 

Accounts   &   Finance/Assistant   Finance   Officer” 
meant   initially   for   a   period   of   five   years   and 
thereafter, by a fresh appointment made it upto 
December 31, 2019, if is being terminated by the 
act of the respondent­University, would such act 
deserve   interference   by   invoking   writ 
jurisdiction of this Court ?

9. As   detailed   hereinbefore,   the   advertisement 
issued for the post of  “Head Budget, Accounts & 
Finance/Assistant Finance Officer” had prescribed 
initially   period   of   five   years   for   contractual 
appointment   on   such   a   post.   Its   subsequent 
extension   depended   upon   the   performance   of   the 
incumbent and need of the respondent­University. 
The   respondent­University     also   retained   the 
discretion   not   to   make   any   appointment   to   this 
post, to make an appointment at a lower pay­scale 
or on consolidated pay, or to make an appointment 
with modified job  description. The pay­scale for 
the said post prescribed was Rs.15600­39100 with 
grade pay of Rs.5400/­. 

Page 21 of 57
Page 21 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

10.

CAV JUDGMENT

On   January   02,   2012,   the   letter   of 

appointment   on   a   fixed   term   was   given   to   the 
petitioner,   subject   to   the   provision   of   the 
Gujarat   National   Law   University   Regulations   in 
the pay­scale of Rs.9300­34800 with grade pay of 
Rs.4600/­.   It   also   made   it   clear   that   after 
successful completion of service of three years, 
he may be given pay­scale of Rs.15600­39100 with 
grade   pay   of   Rs.5400/­.   The   effective   date   of 
appointment mentioned is of January 02, 2012 and 
the expiration date is December 31, 2017.

11.

Clause   3   under   the   heading   of   “Type   of 

Appointment” mentions as under :

“3.  Type of Appointment
a.   This   fixed­term   appointment   will   be   for  
the   five   year   out   of   which   the   first   year  
would   be   considered   as   probation.   This 
appointment   shall   expire   without   prior 
notice   on   the   expiration   date   indicated   in  
paragraph 2. This fixed­term appointment may 
be extended, depending upon the needs of the 
University, your performance records and any 

Page 22 of 57
Page 22 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

other   criteria   as   may   be   fixed   by   the  
Executive   Council   of   the   University   from 
time to time.
b. 

You   shall   give   a   60   days   notice   in  

writing   to   the   Registrar   to   effect   your 
resignation.   You   shall   not   leave   the 
university   during   the   ongoing   semester/ 
projects.
c. 

You   shall   not   engage   yourself   in   any 

other paid services either fulltime or part 
time,   during   the   continuance   of   your 
services.”

12.

The petitioner accepted the said appointment 

as   prescribed   in   the   letter   dated   January   02, 
2012. 

13.

On   January   24,   2013,   the   respondent­

Registrar   addressed   a   communication   to   the 
petitioner that his employment to the respondent­
University   is   confirmed   for   a   period   of   five 
years   with   effect   from   commencement   of   his 
service,   on   completion   of   the   period   of 
probation, subject to the terms and conditions as 
per his letter of appointment. 
Page 23 of 57
Page 23 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

14.

CAV JUDGMENT

A   fresh   letter   of   December   31,   2013   was 

issued   to   the   petitioner,   which   speaks   of   his 
effective date of appointment as January 01, 2014 
and expiration date as December 31, 2019. Clause 
6   of   the   said   communication   dated   December   31, 
2013, reads as under :

“6. Special Conditions/Entitlements
Your   original   date   of   joining   on   the 
position of Head, Budget, Accounts & Finance  
Officer/Assistant   Finance   Officer,   i.e.   02 
January   2012   will   be   utilised   for   the 
purposes   of   calculation   of   your   services 
except   financial   benefits.   In   case   of 
inconsistency or conflict between the terms 
of   this   appointment   and   the   GNLU 
regulations, the latter shall prevail.” 

15.

Yet another communication dated December 31, 

2013,   provides   that   his   pay­scale   would   be 
Rs.15600­39100   with   grade   pay   of   Rs.5400/­   with 
effect   from   January   01,   2014,   with   one   year 
probation. The other terms and conditions are the 
same which are provided in his appointment letter 
dated   January   02,   2012.   This   also   ingeminates 
Page 24 of 57
Page 24 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

that   his   original   date   of   joining   on   the   said 
post   will   be   utilised   for   the   purpose   of 
calculation   of   his   service   except   financial 
benefits   and   in   the   event   of   any   conflict   or 
inconsistency, the Regulations would prevail over 
the same. 

16.

Regulation 17 of section III of the Gujarat 

National Law University Administrative and Staff 
Regulations   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the 
Regulations’) provides for mode of appointment to 
administrative   or   ministerial   posts,   which   also 
provides   for   initial   appointment   for   all 
administrative and ministerial staff for duration 
of   five   years   with   one   year   probation   period. 
Subsequent   extension   of   the   contract   is   to   be 
made   on   the   basis   of   needs   of   the   University, 
performance   standards   and   any   other   criteria   as 
may be fixed by the Executive Council, from time 
to   time.   The   contract   extension   may   be   granted 
for   a   period   of   five   years   or   three   years,   as 
determined by the Contract Extension Committee. 

Page 25 of 57
Page 25 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

 

CAV JUDGMENT

It   also   provides   that   the   Contract 

Extension   Committee   shall   be   composed   of   the 
Director, Registrar, Head of Academic Affairs and 
two members of the Executive Council as nominated 
by the Executive Council.
 

Regulation   17(7)   of   the   Regulations 

provides   that   administrative   and   ministerial 
staff members appointed prior to the adoption of 
these   regulations   shall   continue   to   remain   in 
their current posts and receive existing benefits 
until   the   expiry   of   their   term.   However,   any 
renewal   of   their   contract   shall   be   subject   to 
their fulfilling the qualifications as prescribed 
by the Government of Gujarat.
 

Regulation   17(9)   of   the   Regulations 

provides   for   appointment,   where   the   power   of 
appointment of staff rests with the Director upon 
approval   by   the   Executive   Council.   Each   staff 
member shall receive a letter of appointment and 
signed by the Registrar or by an official in the 
name   of   the   Registrar.   It   should   contain 

Page 26 of 57
Page 26 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

expressly   or   by   reference   all   the   terms   and 
conditions of employment. 
 

The   effective   date   of   appointment   is 

provided   in   Regulation   17(10),   which   enumerates 
that the appointment of every staff member shall 
take   effect   from   the   date   on   which   the   staff 
member starts to perform his or her duties.
 

Regulation   17(12)   provides   for   three 

types   of   appointments,   viz.   (i)   short­term 
appointment (ii) fixed­term appointment and (iii) 
permanent appointment.
 

Short­term   appointment   is   where   the 

total   period   of   service   is   expected   to   be   less 
than one year. It does not carry any expectation 
of renewal of appointment or of conversion to any 
other type of appointment.
 

Fixed­term   appointment   has   expiration 

date specified in the letter of appointment which 
may be for a term of five years.
 

The subject of permanent appointment at 

the   time   of   enacting   these   Regulations   was 
Page 27 of 57
Page 27 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

suspended   till   the   time   as   resolved   by   the 
General   Council   on   February   27,   2016,   not   to 
convert any fixed term appointment into permanent 
appointment   from   amongst   those   who   were   working 
on fixed terms.

17.

The Resolution of the Executive Council was 

put up for discussion in the 14th  Meeting of the 
General   Council   on   February   27,   2016   and   it 
resolved   to   accept   the   recommendations   of   the 
Permanent   Appointment   Committee,   which   had 
provided to fill in the approved posts for non­
teaching   staff   members   through   fresh 
advertisement.   Those   who   were   appointed   on   five 
years' basis would have no right to get extension 
or renewal on completion of five years' period. 
 

It, thus, makes it clear that the policy 

decision is taken by the General Council not to 
renew   the   fixed   term   contract   and   to   fill  in 
those   posts   of   teaching   and   non­teaching   staff 
members by fresh advertisement. It does not speak 
of   curtailing   period   of   existing   contract. 
Corollary   to   this   is   the   question   whether   the 
Page 28 of 57
Page 28 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

contract   with   the   petitioner   has   not   already 
ended  on  December  31,  2016,  or  at  the   best,  by 
January   01,   2017,   since   the   same   had   begun   on 
fixed term on January 02, 2012.
18.

As is also quite clear from the first letter 

that in the event of any conflict in the letter 
of   appointment   and   in   the   Regulations,   the 
Regulations would have precedence over the letter 
of appointment. The Regulations also provide that 
such   appointment   shall   be   for   a   period   of   five 
years and with one year probation period. Reading 
the same with Regulation 17(12)(b), which defines 
fixed­term appointment, it is enumerated therein 
that the letter of appointment should be granted 
for a fixed period of five years and, therefore, 
the initial appointment would end on January 01, 
2017.  Reference  at  this  stage  is  a  must  of  the 
second   letter   of   appointment   issued   on   December 
31,   2013.   Coupled   with   this,   there   is   the 
necessity   to   read   Regulation   17(6)   of   the   said 
Regulations, which says that subsequent extension 
of   the   contract   shall   be   made   on   the   basis   of 
needs   of   the   University,   performance   standards 
Page 29 of 57
Page 29 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

and   any   other   criteria   as   may   be   fixed   by   the 
Executive   Council.   Such   extension   could   be 
granted   for   a   period   of   five   years   or   three 
years,   as   may   be   determined   by   the   Contract 
Extension   Committee.   The   constitution   of   the 
Contract   Extension   Committee   is   also   provided 
which   consists   of   the   Director,   Registrar,   Head 
of   Academic   Affairs   and   two   members   of   the 
Executive   Council   as   nominated   by   the   Executive 
Council. 

19.

It   is   unequivocally   emerging   from   record 

that the initial appointment which was meant for 
five   years   provided   expiration   of   the   date   of 
appointment   as   December   31,   2017   instead   of 
January   02,   2017.   The   authority   may   choose   to 
execute   one   year   period   of   probation,   however, 
the   said   Regulation   provides   that   out   of   the 
fixed term of five years, the first year should 
be considered for probation. 

20.

Assuming that this was a mistake on the part 

of   the   respondent­University   in   mentioning   the 

Page 30 of 57
Page 30 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

year   as   December   31,   2017,   they   ought   to   have 
mentioned as December 31, 2016 in the appointment 
order, however, the matter does not rest here. On 
his completion of period of probation on January 
02, 2013, the correspondence which has been made 
was of January 24, 2013. He also made a request 
on January 31, 2013 and thereafter, for putting 
him in the pay­scale of Rs.15600­39100 with grade 
pay   of   Rs.5400/­.   Although   the   respondent   says 
that there was no requirement of fresh letter of 
appointment   of   December   31,   2013,   the   fact 
remains   that   such   a   letter   was   issued   and   a 
parallel   letter   of   the   selfsame   date   had   also 
been communicated to the petitioner that he had 
been   placed   in   the   pay­scale   prescribed   in   the 
advertisement. Both the letters provide for fixed 
period of appointment of five years with one year 
probation.

21.

Going by the words “period of appointment”, 

it   provides   for  five   years   with   one   year 
probation. This can also mean six years in all. 
However, making a conjoint reading of this letter 

Page 31 of 57
Page 31 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

with the Regulations, the fixed term appointment 
since   provides   for   five   years,   the   period   of 
probation would need to be included therein and 
total period cannot be considered more than five 
years. Assuming that, therefore, the reference of 
December 31, 2019, is a mistake as indicated in 
the   affidavit­in­reply   and   the   respondent­
University meant it for December 31, 2018, then 
also, it is limpid  from the chronology of events 
that   expiration   date   of   appointment   as   per   the 
last   letter   of   appointment   dated   December   31, 
2013, is undoubtedly December 31, 2018. It could 
be either January 01, 2019 or December 31, 2018, 
but in no case, the same can be read or construed 
as December 31, 2016, as sought to be pleaded by 
the respondent­University. 
(emphasis supplied)
22.

As   is   quite   apparent   from   the   Regulations, 

the   Executive   Council,   on   receipt   of   panel   of 
names   of   persons   recommended   by   the   Selection 
Committee, appoint such persons, as it may deem 
fit,   to   the   advertised   administrative   or 
ministerial post. It has been so done and after 
Page 32 of 57
Page 32 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

completion of probation of one year, considering 
the   need   of   the   respondent   and   the   performance 
standards and other criteria that may have been 
fixed by the Executive Council, the extension has 
been   granted   for   further   period   of   five   years. 
This   is   also   in   consonance   with   the   Contract 
Extension   Committee.   The   Committee   consists   of 
the Director, Registrar, Head of Academic Affairs 
and   two   members   of   the   Executive   Council   as 
nominated by the Executive Council. Therefore, to 
give a lame excuse that the subsequent letter of 
appointment   was   uncalled   for   or   was   unnecessary 
and   that   the   petitioner   was   aware   of   the   fact 
that   the   period  of   contract   was   to   end   on 
December 31, 2016, is nothing but an afterthought 
and also a defence, which is devoid of any  bona 
fide. It can be termed as a conscious decision as 
after considering the need and requirement of the 
University, so also on fully appreciating working 
of the petitioner for nearly two years, not only 
the fresh appointment was given on December 31, 
2013,   but   the   petitioner   was   also   provided   the 
pay­scale   which   was   advertised   in   the 

Page 33 of 57
Page 33 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

advertisement dated September 15, 2011. A further 
term   was   also   added   that   his   original   date   of 
joining   on   the   said   post   would   be   utilised   for 
the purpose of calculation of his services except 
for   financial   benefits.   Surely   this   sequence   of 
event   leading   to   grant   of   extension   cannot   be 
said by any stretch of imagination a mistake of 
“a   most   trifling   nature”   as   contended   by   the 
respondent­University.   Nor   can   this   lead   to   the 
conclusion     that   the   date   of   expiration   of 
contract   of   five   years   is   either   December   31, 
2016 or December 31, 2017. 

23.

The   respondent­University   is   the   'State' 

under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and 
is expected not only to be fair in its contract 
but fairer while dealing with its employees i.e. 
teaching   and   non­teaching   staff   members.   Having 
once   issued   a   fresh   letter   of  appointment 
consciously   and   thereafter   also,   granting   the 
petitioner   pay­scale   which   was   otherwise   meant 
after   successful   completion   of   three   years,   to 
say   that   it   was   his   persistent   insistence   to 

Page 34 of 57
Page 34 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

grant   such   pay­scale   had   led   the   University   to 
grant   it,   is   also   not   a   fathomable   approach. 
Again, had there been a mistake of giving a fresh 
appointment on December 31, 2013, there would not 
have been a reference in the subsequent letter of 
granting   pay­scale   of   his   original   date   of 
joining   i.e.   January   02,   2012,   ensuring   to 
consider   his   original   date   of   joining   for   the 
purpose   of   other   benefits,   excluding   the 
financial benefits. 

24.

It   is   a   matter   of   record   that   the 

requirement   of   conversion   of   contractual 
employment into permanent employment was a major 
issue, which was going on between the Executive 
Council and the General Council. Eventually, the 
Committee   appointed   when   opined   for   issuance   of 
advertisement, the General Council accepted such 
report   on   January   21,   2016   and,   therefore,   the 
averment on the part of the petitioner that he is 
entitled   to   permanancy   on   the   post   on   which   he 
was serving, is not accepted.

Page 35 of 57
Page 35 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

 

CAV JUDGMENT

This Court in Special Civil Application 

No.6296 of 2016, having regard to the very issue 
raised   by   the   teaching   member   of   the   very 
University   has   dealt   with   the   same   and, 
therefore,   the   issue   does   not   require   further 
elaboration.

25.

It   is   an   admitted   position   that   the 

petitioner   had   participated   in   the   process   of 
filling   up   of   the   post   of   Section   Officer 
(Accounts)   advertised   in   the   month   of   October, 
2016   and   he   had   also   cleared   the   written   test. 
His oral interview was scheduled on November 30, 
2016,   the   outcome   of   which   has   not   been   made 
available. 

26.

Be that as it may, it is not the very post, 

but the pay­scale is also the lower than the pay­
scale prescribed for the post of the petitioner 
and   again,   the   person   who   is   in   contractual 
service is always entitled to participate in the 
advertisement for any permanent post that may be 
issued by the respondent­University, if otherwise 

Page 36 of 57
Page 36 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

the Regulations so permit. Such participation by 
itself   cannot   be   determinative   of   his   knowledge 
or his understanding of this contract ending on 
December   31,   2016.   With   nothing   being   adverse 
against   the   petitioner   and   not   a   whisper   about 
his   negative   or   substandard   performance,   in   the 
pleadings also, and with a specific inclusion of 
powers   with   the   authority   to   extend   the 
contractual appointment on the basis of the need 
of   the   University   and   recommendation   of   the 
Executive Council, the petitioner has been given 
extension upto December 31, 2019. In the opinion 
of this Court, therefore, terminating his service 
without any rhyme or reason, on the ground of his 
contractual term ending on December 31, 2016, is 
an act which by no standard, can be sustained. 
27.

At   this   stage,   Regulation   25   that   provides 

for “termination”  requires reference. Regulation 
25(1) provides that the appointing authority may 
terminate the service of an employee at any time 
prior to the expiry of the term of contract and 
by giving him a notice of fifteen days in case of 
his   appointment   during   probation   period,   if   (a) 
Page 37 of 57
Page 37 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

the   exigencies   of   service   require   abolition   of 
the post of reduction of staff; (b) the employee 
does not meet the highest standards of academic 
and/or   professional   competence,   integrity   and 
efficiency   required   by   the   University;   (c)   the 
employee   for   reason   of   health,   is   incapacitated 
for further retention in service; (d) such facts 
anterior   to   the   appointment   of   an   employee   and 
relevant   to   his   suitability   have   come   to   the 
knowledge   which   would   have,   precluded   him   from 
appointment at the time of appointment.

28.

None   of   the   above   grounds   as   provided   in 

Regulation 25 exists to take such action. A new 
permanent post, of course, is contemplated in the 
set   up   of   the   University,   but   that   would   not 
contemplate   terminating   his   contract   at   a 
premature   stage.   No   notice   of   termination   has 
been   issued   to   the   petitioner.   Of   course,   his 
apprehension   is   not   misplaced   as   the   affidavit­
in­reply is with the fullest force vindicate such 
stand of the respondent. 

Page 38 of 57
Page 38 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

29.

CAV JUDGMENT

At this stage, the reference is needed to be 

made to the decisions sought to be relied upon by 
the   learned   Senior   Counsel   Shri   D.C.   Dave 
appearing for the respondent­University.   In the 
case   of  Executive   Committee   of   Vaish   Degree  
College, Shamli and others v. Lakshmi Narain and  
others,   reported   in   (1976)   2   SCC   58,   the   Apex 
Court   has   held   that   a   contract   of   personal 
service   cannot   ordinarily   be

 specifically 

enforced and the Courts normally would not give a 
declaration   that   the   contract   subsists   and   the 
employee,   even   after   having   been   removed   from 
service, can be deemed to be in service against 
the will and consent of the employer. This rule, 
however,   is   subject   to   three   well   recognised 
exceptions : (i) where a public servant is sought 
to   be   removed   from   service   in   contravention   of 
the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution 
of   India;   (ii)   where   a   worker   is   sought   to   be 
reinstated   on   being   dismissed   under   the 
Industrial Law; and (iii) where a statutory body 
acts   in   breach   or   violation   of   the   mandatory 
provisions of the statute.

Page 39 of 57
Page 39 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

30.

CAV JUDGMENT

In   the   case   of  Official   Liquidator   v. 

Dayanand and others, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1, 
the   Apex   Court   while   considering   the   power   of 
judicial review in the case of public employment 
has   held   that   although   the   decision   of   the 
employer to create or abolish posts or cadres or 
to   prescribe   the   source   or   mode   of   recruitment 
and   laying   down   the   qualification,   etc.   is   not 
immune   from   judicial   review,   the   Court   will 
always   be   extremely   cautious   and   circumspect   in 
tinkering with the exercise of discretion by the 
employer.   It   further   held   that   the   power   of 
judicial review can be exercised in such matters 
only   if   it   is   shown   that   the   action   of   the 
employer   is   contrary   to   any   constitutional   or 
statutory provisions or is patently arbitrary or 
vitiated by mala fides.
 

At   this   stage,   it   would   be   apt   to 

reiterate the relevant findings and observations 
of   the   Apex   Court   in   the   said   decision,   which 
read as under :

Page 40 of 57
Page 40 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

“59.  The   creation   and   abolition   of   posts,  
formation   and   structuring/   restructuring   of 
cadres,   prescribing   the   source   and   mode   of  
recruitment   and   qualifications   and   criteria 
of   selection   etc.   are   matters   which   fall 
within the exclusive domain of the employer.  
Although   the   decision   of   the   employer   to 
create   or   abolish   posts   or   cadres   or   to 
prescribe the source or mode of recruitment 
and lay  down the  qualification etc. is not 
immune from  judicial review, the Court will 
always be extremely cautious and circumspect 
in tinkering with the exercise of discretion  
by   the   employer.   The   Court   cannot   sit   in 
appeal over the judgment of the employer and  
ordain that a particular post or number of 
posts be created or  filled by a particular 
mode   of   recruitment.   The   power   of   judicial  
review can be exercised in such matters only  
if   it   is   shown   that   the   action   of   the 
employer   is   contrary   to   any   constitutional 
or   statutory   provisions   or   is   patently 
arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides.”

31.

In   the   decision   of   the   Apex   Court   in   the 

case   of

 Bhagwandas   Governdandas   Kedia   v.  

M/s.Girdharlal Parshottamdas and Co. and others, 
reported in AIR 1966 SC 543, the Court held that 
a contract unlike a tort, is not unilateral. If 

Page 41 of 57
Page 41 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

there be no “meeting of minds”, no contract may 
result. There should, therefore, be an offer by 
one party express or implied, and acceptance of 
that   offer   by   the   other   in   the   same   sense   in 
which it was made by the other. But the agreement 
does not from a mere state of mind : intent to 
accept an offer does not give rise to a contract. 
There must be intent to accept and some external 
manifestation   of   that   intent   by   speech,   writing 
or other act, and acceptance must be communicated 
to the offeror. 
 

It   would   be   apt   to   regurgitate   the 

relevant   observations   of   the   Apex   Court   in   the 
said decision, which read as under :
“6.  The   principal   contention   raised   by   the 
defendants   raises   a   problem   of   some 
complexity   which   must   be   approached   in   the  
light   of   the   relevant   principles   of   the 
common   law   and   statutory   provisions 
contained   in   the Contract   Act.   A   contract 
unlike a tort is not unilateral. If there be  
no   "meeting   of   minds"   no   contract   may 
result.   There   should   therefore   be   an   offer  
by   one   party,   express   or   implied,   and 
acceptance of that offer by the other in the  
Page 42 of 57
Page 42 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

same   sense   in   which   it   was   made   by   the  
other. But an agreement does not result from  
a mere state of mind : intent to accept an  
offer or even a mental resolve to accept an 
offer   does   not   give   rise   to   a   contract. 
There   must   be   intent   to   accept   and   some 
external   manifestation   of   that   intent   by 
speech, writing or other act, and acceptance  
must be­­communicated to the offeror, unless 
he has waived such intimation, or the course  
of negotiations implies an agreement to the 
contrary.”

32.

In   the   decision   of   the   Apex   Court   in   the 

case of Banchhanidhi Rath v. The State of Orissa  
and   others,   reported   in   AIR   1972   SC   843,   the 
Court held that the contract of employment cannot 
be enforced in an application under Article 226 
of the Constitution of India. There is no right 
to remain in service. If such a right is claimed 
in   terms   of   a   contract   or   out   of   a   custom,   it 
cannot be enforced in a writ application. In the 
matter   before   the   Apex  Court,   the   Government 
under its uniform policy  retired a teacher of an 
aided school under its control, on attaining the 
age   of   58   years,   the   Apex   Court   held   that   the 

Page 43 of 57
Page 43 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

order   cannot   be   interfered   with   in   writ 
application.

33.

In   the   decision   of   the   Apex   Court   in   the 

case   of  Pearlite   Liners   (P)   Ltd.   v.   Manorama  
Sirsi,   reported   in   (2004)   3   SCC   172,   the   Court 
held that the contract of personal service cannot 
be   enforced   and   a   Court   will   not   give   a 
declaration   that   the   contract   subsists   and   the 
employee continues to be in service against the 
will   and   consent   of   the   employer.   It   also 
ingeminated what had been held by the Apex Court 
in the case of Laxmi Narain (supra).

34.

The decisions of the Apex Court in the case 

of  Shrilekha   Vidyarthi   (supra)   and   in   the   case 
of  Gridco Ltd. (supra) have been relied upon by 
both the sides.
35.

In   the   decision   of   the   Apex   Court   in   the 

case   of  Gridco   Ltd.   and   another   v.   Sadananda  
Doloi   and   others,   reported   in   AIR  2012   SC   729, 
while considering the appointment on contractual 
basis, the Court held that the scope of review is 
Page 44 of 57
Page 44 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

not   all   pervasive.   It   does   not   extend   to  Court 
substituting its own view for that taken by the 
decision­making authority. 
 

Relevant   findings   and   observations   of 

the   Apex   Court   in   the   said   decision   would   be 
profitable to be reproduced as under:
“26.  A   conspectus   of   the   pronouncements   of 
this court  and the development of law over 
the   past   few   decades   thus   show   that   there 
has   been   a   notable   shift   from   the   stated 
legal position settled in earlier decisions, 
that termination of a contractual employment 
in accordance with the terms of the contract  
was permissible and the employee could claim  
no protection against such termination even 
when one of the contracting parties happened  
to   be   the   State.   Remedy   for   a   breach   of   a  
contractual   condition   was   also   by   way   of 
civil   action   for   damages/compensation.   With 
the  development of law relating to judicial  
review   of   administrative   actions,   a   writ 
Court   can   now   examine   the   validity   of   a 
termination   order   passed   by   public 
authority.   It   is   no   longer   open   to   the  
authority   passing   the   order   to   argue   that 
its action being in the realm of contract is  
not open to judicial review. A writ Court is  

Page 45 of 57
Page 45 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

entitled to judicially review the action and  
determine whether there was any illegality, 
perversity,   unreasonableness,   unfairness   or 
irrationality that would vitiate the action, 
no   matter   the   action   is   in   the   realm   of  
contract. Having said that we must add that 
judicial   review   cannot   extend   to   the   Court  
acting as an appellate authority sitting in 
judgment over the decision. The Court cannot  
sit in the arm chair of the Administrator to  
decide whether a more reasonable decision or  
course   of   action   could   have   been   taken   in 
the   circumstances.   So   long   as   the   action 
taken   by   the   authority   is   not   shown   to   be 
vitiated   by   the   infirmities   referred   to 
above   and   so   long   as   the   action   is   not  
demonstrably   in   outrageous   defiance   of 
logic,   the   writ   Court   would   do   well   to  
respect the decision under challenge.”
36.

In the case of  Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra), 

the State Government had by a circular terminated 
the   engagement   of   all   the   Government   counsel 
engaged throughout the State and sought to defend 
the   same   on   the   ground   that   such   appointments 
being   contractual   in   nature   were   terminable   at 
the   will   of   the   Government.   The   question   of 
reviewability   of   administrative   action   in   the 

Page 46 of 57
Page 46 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

realm of contract was in that backdrop examined 
by the Court. The Court also examined whether the 
personality   of   the   State   Government   underwent   a 
change   after   the   initial   appointment   of   the 
Government   counsel   so   as   to  render   its   action 
immune   from   judicial   scrutiny   and   answered   the 
same in negation. The Court held that even after 
the   initial   appointment   had   been   made   and   even 
when the matter is in the realm of contract, the 
State   could   not   cast   off   its   personality   and 
exercise   a   power   unfettered   by   the   requirements 
of   Article   14   of   the   Constitution   of   India   or 
claim   to   be   governed   only   by   private   law 
principles applicable to private individuals. 
On the said issue, the Apex Court in the 
said decision held and observed thus :
“.. .. we are also clearly of the view that 
this   power   is   available   even   without   that 
element   on   the   premise   that   after   the 
initial   appointment,   the   matter   is   purely 
contractual.   Applicability   of Article   14 to 
all   executive   actions   of   the   State   being 
settled   and   for   the   same   reason   its 
applicability at the threshold to the making  

Page 47 of 57
Page 47 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

of a  contract in  exercise of  the executive 
power being beyond dispute, can it  be said 
that the State can thereafter cast  off its 
personality   and   exercise   unbridled   power 
unfettered   by   the  requirements   of Article 
14 in the sphere of contractual matters and 
claim to be governed therein only by private  
law   principles   applicable   to   private 
individuals whose rights flow only from the 
terms of the contract without anything more?  
We   have   no   hesitation   in   saying   that   the 
personality   of   the   State,   requiring 
regulation of its conduct in all spheres by 
requirements of Article 14, does not undergo 
such a radical change after the making of a 
contract   merely   because   some   contractual 
rights   accrue   to   the   other   party   in 
addition. It is not  as if  the requirements 
of Article   14 and   contractual   obligations 
are alien concepts, which cannot co­exist."

37.

Recognising   the   difference   between   public 

and   private   law   activities   of   the   State,   the 
Court   reasoned   out   that   unlike   private 
individuals,   the   State   while   exercising   its 
powers   and   discharging   its   functions,   acts   for 
public good and in public interest. Every act of 
the State has an impact on the public interest, 

Page 48 of 57
Page 48 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

which   would   in   turn   bring   in   the   minimal 
requirements   of   public   law   obligations   in   the 
discharge of such functions, to that extent the 
action of the State challenged on the ground of 
being arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable, and so 
held   it   offensive   under   Article   14   of   the 
Constitution.   It   further   held   that   the   dispute 
fell within the domain of contractual obligations 
did   not   relieve   the   State   of   its   obligation   to 
comply with the basic requirement of Article 14 
of the Constitution. 
 

It would be appropriate to reproduce the 

relevant   findings   and   observations   of   the 
decision   of   the   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of 
Shrilekha   Vidyarthi   (supra),   which   read   as 
under:
 
“This   factor   alone   is   sufficient   to   import 
at least the minimal requirements of public 
law   obligations   and   impress   with   this  
character the contracts made by the State or  
its   instrumentality.   It   is   a   different 
matter that the scope of judicial review in 
respect   of   disputes   falling   within   the 
domain   of   contractual   obligations   may   be 

Page 49 of 57
Page 49 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

more   limited   and   in   doubtful   cases   the 
parties may be relegated to adjudication of 
their rights by resort to remedies provided 
for   adjudication   of   purely   contractual 
disputes. However, to the extent, challenge 
is   made   on   the   ground   of   violation   of  
Article 14 by alleging that the impugned act  
is   arbitrary,   unfair   or   unreasonable,   the 
fact that the dispute also falls within the 
domain of contractual obligations would not 
relieve   the   State   of   its   obligation   to 
comply   with   the   basic   requirements   of 
Article   14.   To   this   extent,   the   obligation  
is of a public character invariably in every  
case   irrespective   of   there   being   any   other  
right or obligation in addition thereto. An 
additional   contractual   obligation   cannot 
divest   the   claimant   of   the   guarantee   under  
Article 14 non­arbitrariness at the hands of  
the State in any of its actions."

38.

In   the   case   of  Gridco   Ltd.   (supra),   the 

appointment   order   was   made   by   the   Government 
Company clearly describing appointment as tenure 
appointment.   The   order   also   made   it   abundantly 
clear   that   the   employment   was   terminable   even 
during currency of tenure on three months’ notice 
or   on   payment   of   three   months’   salary   in   lieu 

Page 50 of 57
Page 50 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

thereof. Moreover, the service regulations of the 
company   also   stipulated   that   appointments  to 
executive   grades   shall   only   be   on   contractual 
basis.   The   Apex   Court   held   that   with   the 
development of law relating to judicial review of 
administrative   actions,   a   writ   Court   can   now 
examine   the   validity   of   a   termination   order 
passed by public authority. It is no longer open 
to the authority passing the order to argue that 
its action being in the realm of contract is not 
open to judicial review. A writ Court is entitled 
to   judicially   review   the   action   and   determine 
whether   there   was   any   illegality,   perversity, 
unreasonableness,   unfairness   or   irrationality 
that   would   vitiate   the   action,   no   matter   the 
action is in the realm of contract. The Court, of 
course, cannot act as an appellate authority. The 
Court   also   cannot   sit   in   the   armchair   of   the 
Administrator to decide whether a more reasonable 
decision   or   course   of   action   could   have   been 
taken.   So   long   as   the   action   taken   by   the 
authority   is   not   shown   to   be   vitiated   by   the 
infirmities referred to in the said decision and 

Page 51 of 57
Page 51 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

so   long     as   the   action   is   not   demonstrably   in 
outrageous   defiance   of   logic,  the   writ   Court 
would   do   well   to   respect   the   decision   under 
challenge.
 

In the matter before the Apex Court, the 

respondent   was   appointed   by   the   Corporation   on 
contractual basis on a senior executive post. The 
tenure of contract was fixed. Renewal of contract 
of   employment   depended   upon   perception   of 
management   as   to   usefulness   of   respondent   and 
need   for   an   incumbent   in   position   held   by   him. 
The respondent was in service of another employer 
before   he   chose   to   accept   a   contractual 
employment   offered   to   him   by   Corporation   which 
was   limited   in   tenure   and   terminable   by   three 
months’ notice on either side. The Court found no 
element   of   any   unfair   treatment   or   unequal 
bargaining   power   and   held   that   there   was   no 
requirement of any over­sympathetic or protective 
approach towards him. In absence of any material 
to   show   whether   there   is   any   unreasonableness, 
unfairness,   perversity   or   irrationality   in   the 
action   taken   by   the   Corporation.   The   order 
Page 52 of 57
Page 52 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

setting aside termination was, therefore, held to 
be   improper.   The   Court  held   that   in   the   modern 
commercial   world,   executives   are   engaged   on 
account of their expertise in a particular field 
and those who are so employed are free to leave 
or be asked to leave by the employer. Contractual 
appointments work only if the same are mutually 
beneficial   to   both   the   contracting   parties   and 
not otherwise.

39.

From   above   referred   pronouncements   of   the 

Apex   Court   and   the   development   of   law   over   the 
past few decades, coupled with the discussion on 
factual aspects, this Court has no hesitation to 
hold   that   there   is   sufficient   material   to   hold 
that   the   action   on   the   part   of   the   respondent­
authority   is   unfair   and   unreasonable.   With   the 
development   of   law,   the   power   of   writ   Court   to 
examine   termination   order   is   beyond   any   doubt 
exists and any order terminating the service of 
an employee by a public authority, even if falls 
within   the   realm   of   contract,   is   open   to   the 
judicial review.

Page 53 of 57
Page 53 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

40.

CAV JUDGMENT

Without   sitting   in   the   armchair   of   the 

administrative authority, it can be said that the 
challenge in the present petition is made on the 
ground of violation of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of 
the Constitution of India, rightly claiming that 
the   impugned   act   of   the   respondent­authority   of 
terminating   the   service   is   unreasonable   and 
unfair. Applying Article 14 to the action of the 
respondent­University,   though   the   action   can   be 
said to be in the realm of contract, as held by 
the   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of  Shrilekha  
Vidyarthi   (supra),   the   Authority   which   is   also 
included   under   Article   12   of   the   Constitution, 
cannot have unbridled powers. It cannot claim to 
be governed only by a private law applicable to 
private individuals, whose rights flow only from 
the terms of the contract, without anything more.

41.

Here   in   the   present   case,   even   if   the 

respondent­University   claims   to   be   governed   by 
the   terms   of   the   contract,   then   also   any 
termination   without   any   material   for   ending   the 
service   of   an   employee,   prior   to   January   01, 
Page 54 of 57
Page 54 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

2019,   can   be   held   to   be   an   act,   which   surely 
warrants indulgence being violative of Article 14 
of the Constitution of India. It is undoubtedly 
the discretion of the concerned authority either 
to appoint a person or to grant extension. If the 
terms indicated in the letter of appointment are 
to govern the contractual appointment, then also 
the   Regulations   provide   for   completing   the 
contractual appointment for the period for which 
it   had   been   granted.   In   the   decisions   taken   by 
the   Executive   Council   Committee   and   thereafter, 
by   the   General   Council   also,   the   appointments 
were to be made on the permanent post created in 
the   set   up   by   direct   recruitment,   however,   it 
does not contemplate anything for ending the term 
of any of the employees before the expiration of 
actual term, particularly when there is complete 
absence   of   any   ground   as   contemplated   in 
Regulation 25. 

42.

It   is   not   out   of   place   to   mention   at   this 

stage that neither any notice has been given to 
the   petitioner   nor   has   any   rectification   order 

Page 55 of 57
Page 55 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

CAV JUDGMENT

been   issued   to   the   petitioner   in   the   post 
December 31, 2016 period. It was only in October, 
2016, he came to be intimated, that too orally, 
that his term was to end on December 31, 2016 and 
not on January, 2019, as discussed hereinbefore. 
Such   an   action   of   the   respondent­University 
cannot be endorsed by any standard and in fact, 
deserves to be strongly disapproved, terming the 
same as arbitrary and unreasonable in absence of 
any reason much less valid and cogent grounds for 
such   termination   and   resultantly,   the   petition 
deserves to be allowed.

43.

For   the   foregoing   reasons,   the   present 

petition   succeeds   and   the   same   is,   accordingly, 
allowed.   The   petitioner   is   held   entitled   to   be 
continued   in   appointment   as   per   the   letter   of 
appointment   dated   December   31,   2013,   however, 
only   upto   January   01,   2019,   on   his   completing 
five   years’   fixed   term   appointment   as   per   the 
Regulations,   in   the   pay­scale   of   Rs.15600­39100 
with grade pay of Rs.5400/­.

Page 56 of 57
Page 56 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017

 HC-NIC

C/SCA/21629/2016

 

CAV JUDGMENT

Disposed of accordingly. There shall be, 

however, no order as to costs. 
 

Direct Service is permitted.

(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.)
Aakar

Page 57 of 57
Page 57 of 57

Created On Wed Apr 19 21:53:50 IST 2017