Case Background
The appellant was appointed as a Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor in Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur.
His appointment was made through notification no. 154 dated 06.11.2007. This notification clearly stated that he had to clear the National Eligibility Test (NET) examination within three years of his appointment.
Later, by notification no. 304 dated 16.11.2009, the University modified this condition. Instead of three years, the time period for clearing NET was extended to five years from the date of appointment.
Therefore, counting five years from his appointment on 06.11.2007, the appellant was required to clear the NET examination by the year 2012.
The records before the Court showed that he failed to clear the NET examination within this extended time.
Because the appointment order itself was conditional on passing NET within the prescribed period, the University passed order no. 489 dated 10.11.2012 terminating his services.
The appellant challenged this termination by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4841 of 2015 before a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court.
On 10.04.2015, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The Single Judge relied on an earlier judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 5768 of 2014 (Rakesh Kumar Prasad vs. Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour), where a similar claim had already been rejected.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 1213 of 2015 before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava, heard the matter on 08.04.2019.
The Bench noted at the outset that this Letters Patent Appeal arose directly out of the judgment dated 10.04.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 4841 of 2015, whereby the writ petition had been dismissed.
The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, had followed his earlier opinion in CWJC No. 5768 of 2014 (Rakesh Kumar Prasad vs. Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour). That earlier case involved a similar issue relating to a teacher’s appointment being made subject to clearing the NET examination within a fixed period.
The University, in its counter affidavit before the Division Bench, pointed out that the judgment in the case of Rakesh Kumar Prasad had itself been tested in appeal. The writ petitioner in that case had filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 327 of 2016.
The Division Bench recorded that LPA No. 327 of 2016 had been dismissed as infructuous on 16.02.2017. Thus, the legal position adopted by the learned Single Judge in Rakesh Kumar Prasad’s case remained undisturbed and stood affirmed.
With this background, the Division Bench turned to the facts of the present case. The Court observed that the issue lay in a “rather limited compass”.
The appellant was appointed as a Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor by notification no. 154 dated 06.11.2007. This order of appointment was not an unconditional, permanent appointment. It specifically required the appointee to clear the NET examination within three years.
The condition was later relaxed in favour of all similarly placed appointees when, by notification no. 304 dated 16.11.2009, the University enhanced the period for clearing NET from three years to five years.
As a result of this relaxation, the appellant had time until 2012 to clear the NET examination.
The records produced before the Court showed that he did not clear the NET examination within this extended five-year period.
Since the appointment order was expressly conditional upon passing NET within the stipulated time, the University treated failure to clear NET as non-fulfilment of a basic requirement of service. On this basis, it issued order no. 489 dated 10.11.2012, terminating his services.
During the appeal hearing, counsel for the appellant tried to challenge the termination by arguing discrimination. He submitted that while the appellant’s appointment order contained such a NET condition, some similarly situated appointees allegedly did not have any such condition in their appointment orders, and their services had not been terminated.
The Division Bench directly addressed this argument. On a specific query from the Bench, counsel for the appellant was unable to place even a single appointment order on record that matched the appellant’s position but did not contain the NET-clearing condition.
In absence of any concrete example or document, the argument of unequal treatment remained unsupported.
The Court also emphasised that it was not in dispute that the appellant was appointed as a teacher. For such posts, the requirement to clear NET was clearly written into the appointment order itself.
Thus, the Court found that the appellant had accepted a conditional appointment. He knew at the time of joining that he must clear NET within the prescribed period, and that his continuation in service depended on fulfilling this condition.
The Division Bench further recalled that the same question had already been considered in detail in the case of Rakesh Kumar Prasad, where a similar claim had been rejected.
In light of that settled legal position, and given the admitted fact that the appellant had not cleared the NET examination by 2012, the Bench concluded that the appellant was himself responsible for the termination of his service.
The Court clearly stated that the appellant-writ petitioner was “entirely blamed” for the termination order because of his failure to secure clearance in the NET examination within the extended time granted.
Finding no legal flaw in the order of termination or in the learned Single Judge’s reasoning, the Division Bench held that there was no ground to interfere.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.04.2015 in CWJC No. 4841 of 2015 was affirmed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for teachers and aspirants in agricultural universities and similar institutions where appointments are made subject to clearing NET or other qualifying exams.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that when such a condition is written in the appointment order, it is binding. If the candidate fails to clear the required exam within the prescribed time, termination of service can follow, and courts are unlikely to interfere.
The decision also shows that claims of unequal treatment must be backed by documents. Simply saying that others were treated differently is not enough; the court will look for specific examples and appointment orders.
For contractual or probationary teachers, this judgment underlines the importance of fully understanding and complying with every condition in their appointment letters, especially exam-related requirements.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the University could terminate the services of a Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor for failure to clear the NET examination within the time stipulated in his appointment order, as extended by subsequent notification.
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that the appointment was conditional on clearing NET within the prescribed period, the appellant admittedly failed to do so, and therefore the termination order was justified and called for no interference. - Issue: Whether the appellant was able to prove discrimination by showing that similarly situated appointees without such conditions were retained in service.
Answer: No. The Court noted that the appellant’s counsel could not produce even a single comparable appointment order without the NET condition, so the plea of discrimination failed. - Issue: Whether there was any reason to differ from the earlier view taken in the case of Rakesh Kumar Prasad on a similar question.
Answer: No. The Court observed that the earlier judgment had already been affirmed in appeal, and following that settled legal position, it rejected the appellant’s claim.
Cases Cited by the Court
- CWJC No. 5768 of 2014, Rakesh Kumar Prasad vs. Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour – relied upon by the learned Single Judge, and noted by the Division Bench as having been affirmed when LPA No. 327 of 2016 was dismissed as infructuous on 16.02.2017.
- LPA No. 327 of 2016 (arising from the judgment in the case of Rakesh Kumar Prasad) – noted by the Division Bench as dismissed as infructuous on 16.02.2017.
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 1213 of 2015 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4841 of 2015
Case Title: Mohan Tanti vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava
Date of Judgment: 08.04.2019
Citation: 2019 (3) PLJR 309
Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr. Sri Niwas Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP-6
For Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (University authorities): Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate; Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 7 and 8: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging termination from the post of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor for not clearing NET within the stipulated period.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxMjEzIzIwMTUjMSNO-2rZ2BkRN628=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
