Case Background
The case arose from employment in an agricultural university at Pusa, Samastipur. The appellant was appointed as a Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor by Rajendra Agricultural University (now Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University).
His appointment was made through notification no.154 dated 06.11.2007. This appointment order clearly stated that he would have to clear the National Eligibility Test (NET) within three years from the date of his appointment.
Later, by notification no.304 dated 16.11.2009, the university relaxed this condition to some extent. The time limit for clearing NET was extended from three years to five years from the date of appointment.
Even after this extension, the appellant did not clear the NET examination. According to the record noted by the Court, he ought to have qualified NET by the year 2012. Since the appointment order was expressly conditional, the university terminated his services through order no.489 dated 10.11.2012.
The appellant first approached the Patna High Court by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4841 of 2015. A learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition on 10.04.2015, following an earlier decision in CWJC No.5768 of 2014 (Rakesh Kumar Prasad vs. Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour), which involved a similar condition about NET.
Not satisfied with 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, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava, heard the appeal and delivered an oral judgment on 08.04.2019.
The Court first noted the limited nature of the issue. There was no dispute that the appellant had been appointed as a teacher, specifically as Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor, by notification no.154 dated 06.11.2007. There was also no dispute that this appointment order itself contained a condition that he must clear the NET examination within a specified time.
Initially, the condition required the appellant to pass NET within three years of his appointment. The university later extended this period to five years through notification no.304 dated 16.11.2009. This extension effectively gave the appellant time up to the year 2012 to clear NET.
The record placed before the Court showed that the appellant failed to clear the NET examination even within this extended five-year period. Because the appointment was clearly stated to be conditional on passing NET, the university proceeded to terminate his services by issuing order no.489 dated 10.11.2012.
In the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant sought to challenge the termination by arguing that some similarly placed appointees did not have such a NET condition in their appointment orders and that they were not removed from service. The underlying plea was of alleged unequal treatment.
The Division Bench specifically tested this argument. The Court asked the appellant’s counsel to produce at least one appointment order comparable to that of the appellant, where the appointee was similarly situated but the NET condition was absent or not acted upon.
However, as the judgment records, counsel for the appellant could not produce a single such appointment order on record. In the absence of any documentary proof, the Court was not ready to accept a bare allegation of discrimination.
The Bench then turned to the earlier decision relied upon by the learned Single Judge, namely the judgment in CWJC No.5768 of 2014 (Rakesh Kumar Prasad vs. Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour). In that case, the High Court had already considered a similar challenge relating to an appointment that was made subject to clearing NET within a fixed period.
The counter affidavit filed by the university in the present appeal informed the Court that the judgment in Rakesh Kumar Prasad had been carried in appeal by that writ petitioner through LPA No.327 of 2016. That Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as infructuous by a Division Bench on 16.02.2017. As a result, the legal position taken in Rakesh Kumar Prasad remained undisturbed and binding.
Relying on this settled legal position and on the admitted facts of the appellant’s own appointment and failure to clear NET, the Division Bench held that the case was squarely covered by the earlier decision.
The Court observed that the appellant himself was entirely to be blamed for the termination order. He had accepted a conditional appointment, benefited from the extension of time from three years to five years, yet did not meet the core condition of clearing NET.
In such a situation, the Court found no basis to interfere with the university’s action or with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The claim that others had been treated differently remained unsupported by any material and therefore could not form the basis for relief.
Ultimately, the Division Bench held that there was no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal. It agreed with the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition and confirmed that the termination order dated 10.11.2012 would stand.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for teachers and academic staff appointed on conditions such as clearing NET within a fixed time. The Patna High Court has made it clear that where an employee accepts a conditional appointment and then fails to meet that condition, the court will not easily interfere with termination.
For aspirants in universities and colleges, especially in Bihar, this means that conditions about passing NET or similar qualifying exams are not mere formalities. They can decide whether a person keeps or loses the job.
The judgment also shows that allegations of unequal treatment must be backed by proper documents. A person cannot simply say that others were treated better; they must place such examples on record. Without proof, the court will not strike down a termination based on such claims.
For universities, the decision confirms that they can lawfully enforce clearly stated conditions of appointment, provided these are part of the appointment order and applied consistently.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can a university employee appointed as a teacher be terminated for not clearing the NET examination within the period specified in his conditional appointment order?
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that where the appointment itself is conditional on clearing NET within a certain time and the appointee fails to do so despite extension, termination based on that condition is valid.
Issue: Will the Court accept a plea of discrimination if the employee only alleges that others were not subjected to the same condition but produces no supporting documents?
Answer: No. The Court refused to rely on unsubstantiated claims and found no ground to interfere in the absence of any comparable appointment order on record.
Issue: Does the earlier decision in Rakesh Kumar Prasad’s case continue to govern similar disputes about conditional appointments and NET clearance?
Answer: Yes. Since the Letters Patent Appeal against that judgment was dismissed as infructuous, the legal position laid down there remains in force and was followed in this case.
Cases Cited by the Court
- CWJC No.5768 of 2014, Rakesh Kumar Prasad vs. Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour (followed).
- LPA No.327 of 2016 arising from the same case, dismissed as infructuous on 16.02.2017 (noted to confirm that the earlier judgment stands).
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.
Citation: 2019 (3) PLJR 348
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava
Date of Judgment: 08.04.2019
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 a writ petition challenging termination from the post of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor for non-clearance of NET.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NDQjMjY0IzIwMTkjMSNO-00vt8eI7SKM=
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.
