Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court of India arising from the appointment of Appellant as an Assistant Professor on a contractual basis by IIIT-Allahabad, despite the advertisement being for regular posts. The appellant, who held a Ph.D. in Information Security and an M.S. in Cyber Law & Information Security with first class, applied pursuant to Advertisement FS-01/2013 calling for applications for regular posts of Professor, Associate Professor, and Assistant Professor in Pay Band-IV and Pay Band-III. After being interviewed on 18.03.2013, the appellant was issued a contractual appointment letter on 06.04.2013 for 12 months, which he accepted under economic compulsion and on the assurance of the then Director. On 26.03.2014, the Institute cancelled all appointments made on 06.04.2013, citing perceived omissions in the selection process. The aggrieved appointees challenged this cancellation in the Allahabad High Court, which on 11.12.2015 allowed the writ petitions and directed reconsideration. The appellant filed a modification application arguing that his contractual appointment was illegal, which was disposed of on 24.03.2017 along with civil appeals. Pursuant to the remand, the Institute on 27.06.2017 re-issued a contractual appointment letter to the appellant, while regularising all other candidates. The appellant then filed Writ Petition No. 7099 of 2018 challenging the contractual nature of his appointment, arguing that the advertisement was for regular posts, the Rules (Rules 9 and 9-A of the Recruitment and Service Rules of IIIT-Allahabad, 1999) prescribe separate selection committees for regular and contractual appointments, and that he was singled out for discriminatory treatment in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 12.02.2019, holding that the Board of Governors' decision after reconsideration was not subject to judicial review, and that the appellant, having accepted the contractual appointment without protest, could not later challenge it. The Division Bench affirmed this decision on appeal, emphasising acquiescence. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments, framed the core issue as whether a contractual appointment against a regular advertisement, subjected to the regular process, is sustainable. The Court noted that the advertisement made no mention of contractual appointments, and the Selection Committee had no jurisdiction to recommend a contractual appointment when the advertisement was for regular posts. The Court held that the appellant's acceptance under economic duress did not constitute estoppel, and that the discriminatory treatment violated Articles 14 and 16. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the Institute to treat the appellant's appointment as regular from the date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Articles 14 and 16 - Discrimination in Appointment - Contractual Appointment in Regular Vacancy - Advertisement issued for regular posts in Pay Band-IV and Pay Band-III, but appellant was arbitrarily given contractual appointment while others were regularised - Held that such differential treatment without justification violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India (Paras 10-12). B) Service Law - Estoppel - Acceptance under Economic Duress - Appellant accepted contractual appointment under economic compulsion and assurance of regularisation - Held that acceptance does not operate as estoppel against challenging illegality or arbitrariness in selection process (Paras 10-12). C) Service Law - Selection Committee - Jurisdiction - Rules 9 and 9-A of Recruitment and Service Rules of IIIT-Allahabad, 1999 - Selection Committee has no authority to recommend contractual appointment when advertisement is for regular posts - Held that such recommendation is without jurisdiction and arbitrary (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether issuing a contractual appointment against an advertisement meant for a regular vacancy, subjecting it to the regular process and arbitrarily granting a contractual appointment, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, and directed Respondent No. 2 to treat the appellant's appointment as regular from the date of initial appointment with all consequential service and monetary benefits.
Law Points
- Contractual appointment against regular advertisement is arbitrary
- Discrimination in selection process violates Articles 14 and 16
- Acceptance under economic duress does not constitute estoppel
- Selection Committee cannot alter nature of appointment without authority
