Case Background
This case arose from appointments made by Veer Kuwar Singh University, Ara, to the post of Assistant Professor in the M.B.A. (Self Finance Course).
The University issued Advertisement No. 01 of 2020 on 22.05.2020. It invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in different faculties, including the M.B.A. (Self Finance Course). The advertisement mentioned that there were five posts under different categories and clearly stated that payment of honorarium would be subject to availability of funds and the decision of the Finance Committee.
The petitioners applied pursuant to this advertisement and were selected. After following what the University itself described as the due process of appointment in accordance with law and the Statute, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors in the M.B.A. (Self Finance Course) on 08.12.2020. They were paid honorarium of Rs. 30,000/- per month and were said to be getting the required pay scale as per UGC guidelines, based on a decision of the Syndicate acting under Section 23 of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976.
The petitioners continued to discharge their duties until 11.09.2021. On that date, the Registrar of Veer Kuwar Singh University issued Memo No. 1696/Estab/2021, cancelling the petitioners’ engagement/appointment. This cancellation memo became the subject of challenge before the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18937 of 2021.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioners approached the Patna High Court seeking a writ to quash Memo No. 1696/Estab/2021 dated 11.09.2021, by which their appointments as Assistant Professors in the M.B.A. (Self Finance Course) were cancelled. They also sought permission to continue functioning as Assistant Professors and payment of arrears of salary, along with any other relief considered appropriate in the facts and circumstances.
The core grievance was that the University, acting through its Syndicate and Registrar, had unilaterally reversed its earlier decision to advertise and fill the posts and had cancelled the petitioners’ appointments without giving them an opportunity of hearing and without following due process.
According to the petitioners’ counsel, the petitioners had been selected strictly as per the terms and conditions of Advertisement No. 01 of 2020. The University Syndicate had earlier taken a decision in exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976, which led to the issuance of the advertisement and the appointments. In their view, there was no power in the Statute allowing the Syndicate to “review” its own decision in this manner, and therefore the later decision to cancel their appointments was without authority and contrary to law.
The petitioners also argued that they were not given any notice or opportunity of hearing before their appointments were cancelled. They contended that even if their appointments were treated as contractual, ad hoc, or temporary and were stated to be subject to availability of funds and approval of the Finance Committee, the nature of the cancellation order was punitive.
In particular, the petitioners pointed to references in the University’s counter affidavit, especially Paragraph 19, where the past service record of petitioner no. 2 in the Indian Air Force and his dismissal were mentioned. The petitioners argued that when such remarks concerning alleged misconduct or past service history are used to justify cancellation, the order can no longer be treated as a simple non-renewal or termination simplicitor; it becomes punitive and attracts the requirement of notice, inquiry, and hearing.
The petitioners further submitted that petitioner no. 2 had not suppressed any fact. He had already given all details regarding his past services and dismissal from the Air Force. Therefore, they argued that the University could not use these disclosed facts later to pass a punitive order behind their back and that, if any fault existed, it was with the University authorities who had appointed them despite being aware of these past details.
On the other side, counsel for the University defended the Syndicate’s decision.
The University’s counsel pointed out that petitioner no. 2 himself had not denied, in Paragraph 7 of the rejoinder, that he was dismissed from the Air Force after a Court Martial. That dismissal had also been upheld by the Supreme Court by order dated 27.09.2016 in Civil Appeal No. 823 of 2013. According to the University, this showed that the petitioners’ own case admitted these adverse facts.
The University further submitted that an Enquiry Committee was constituted in relation to the appointments made under Advertisement No. 01 of 2020. The Enquiry Committee reported to the Syndicate that the functionaries of the University responsible for those appointments had committed illegalities, not only in relation to the petitioners but also other Assistant Professors appointed under the same advertisement.
Based on the Enquiry Committee report, the Syndicate, in its meeting dated 01.09.2021, took a decision which ultimately led to the cancellation memo dated 11.09.2021. The University argued that “illegality should not be perpetuated” and that once irregularities in appointments were detected, the Syndicate was justified in taking corrective action.
In Paragraph 10 of its counter affidavit, the University stated that in the Syndicate meeting it came to light that persons with less than 60% marks were also appointed as Assistant Professors in the M.B.A. Department, which was said to be in complete violation of Section 5(10) of the Statute Part-II of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. On this basis, the University sought to justify the cancellation of appointments.
However, during arguments, the University’s counsel candidly admitted that no specific information was provided in the counter affidavit regarding the petitioners’ own percentage of marks in their Master of Business Administration course. The counsel also accepted that this information had not been supplied by the petitioners in their resume at the time of application, and relied on this aspect to say that the Syndicate’s general decision could not be interfered with.
After hearing both sides and examining the pleadings, the Patna High Court identified the main issue as whether, after appointing the petitioners on 08.12.2020, the University could unilaterally cancel their appointments on the basis of the Syndicate’s decision dated 01.09.2021.
The Court referred to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Swati Priyadarshini vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9758 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11685 of 2021). In that case, the Supreme Court held that even for contractual employees, if an order has punitive character, the minimum requirement is to provide an opportunity of hearing after holding an inquiry and to give reasons.
Applying this principle, the High Court noted that the petitioners were drawing an honorarium of Rs. 30,000/- per month and were appointed under Advertisement No. 01 of 2020 after following the prescribed selection process under the Statute. The Court found that the University authorities and the Syndicate had, on the basis of an internal inquiry report, effectively “reviewed” their earlier decision to advertise and make appointments.
The Court held that such a self-review by the Syndicate is “alien to the Statute” of the University. In other words, the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 did not contemplate the kind of unilateral reversal of an earlier valid appointment decision in the manner done here.
The Court further observed that the remarks in the cancellation order dated 11.09.2021 were punitive in nature. The order, read with the counter affidavit referencing the past dismissal of petitioner no. 2 from the Air Force, went beyond a simple contractual or temporary disengagement. It attached a stigma capable of affecting future employment prospects.
The High Court also made it clear that the order could not be sustained in law, especially considering its effect on the future appointment chances of petitioner no. 2, who had already disclosed all details about his prior service and dismissal from the Indian Air Force. The Court recorded that there was “no suppression of any information” by the petitioners and that, if any lapse existed, it lay with the University at the time of making the appointments. For this, the University alone was responsible.
On this reasoning, the Patna High Court set aside and quashed the impugned Memo No. 1696/Estab/2021 dated 11.09.2021, which was based on the Syndicate’s decision dated 01.09.2021. The Court directed the concerned respondents to “take corrective steps in accordance with law.” The writ petition was then disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for teachers and other staff engaged in universities and colleges, especially in self-financing courses, where appointments are sometimes labelled as contractual, ad hoc, or dependent on funding.
The Patna High Court has clarified that even if a person is a contractual appointee and is paid honorarium, the University cannot suddenly cancel the appointment with stigmatic or punitive remarks without giving a proper opportunity of hearing and following due process. If the order affects reputation or future employment, it is not a simple termination and must meet the standards of fairness laid down by law.
The decision also sends a clear message to universities that they cannot “review” and undo their own appointment decisions in a manner not recognised by their governing statute. If the University discovers mistakes or irregularities in appointments, it must address them through lawful procedures that respect the rights of those already appointed.
For candidates, this judgment shows that if they have disclosed their details honestly and are selected through a notified process, the University cannot later blame them for its own failures and pass stigmatic orders without a fair hearing.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can Veer Kuwar Singh University unilaterally cancel the petitioners’ appointments as Assistant Professors, based on a later Syndicate decision, without notice or hearing?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the Syndicate’s act of reviewing and cancelling its earlier appointment decision is alien to the University Statute, and the punitive nature of the cancellation required an inquiry and opportunity of hearing. - Issue: Does the protection of fair procedure apply to contractual or honorarium-based appointees when the termination order is punitive in nature?
Answer: Yes. Relying on Swati Priyadarshini vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., the Court held that even contractual employees are entitled to opportunity of hearing and reasons if the order is punitive. - Issue: Can the University treat prior disclosed dismissal from service as a ground to pass a stigmatic cancellation order without finding suppression or misconduct in the present recruitment?
Answer: No. The Court found there was no suppression by the petitioners. For any lapse in appointment despite full disclosure, the University alone is responsible, and it cannot lawfully issue a punitive order in this manner.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The Court expressly relied on Swati Priyadarshini vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9758 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 11685 of 2021), regarding the requirement of opportunity of hearing even for contractual employees when the order is punitive.
- The judgment also records that petitioner no. 2’s dismissal from the Air Force was upheld by the Supreme Court by order dated 27.09.2016 in Civil Appeal No. 823 of 2013, but this was a background fact rather than a precedent relied upon for the legal ratio.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18937 of 2021
Case Title: Krishna Narayan Mishra & Anr. vs. Veer Kuwar Singh University, Ara & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh
Date of Judgment: 07.04.2025
Citation: 2025 (2) PLJR 641
Advocates:
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate
- For the Respondents (Veer Kuwar Singh University): Mr. Rajesh Prasad Chaudhary, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) challenging cancellation of appointments to the post of Assistant Professor (M.B.A. Self Finance Course) by a State University.
Impugned Order: Memo No. 1696/Estab/2021 dated 11.09.2021 issued by the Registrar, Veer Kuwar Singh University, Ara, cancelling the petitioners’ appointments.
Outcome: Impugned memo quashed as punitive and contrary to the Statute; respondents directed to take corrective steps in accordance with law; writ petition disposed of.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTg5MzcjMjAyMSMxI04=-MQBfG–ak1–MsDGY=
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.
