Substantive Appointment of University Faculty Post-Conversion: Insights from Somesh Thapliyal v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University: Supreme Court Of India

Introduction

The case of Somesh Thapliyal And Another (S) v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University And Another (S) (2021 INSC 444) presents a pivotal moment in the jurisprudence surrounding the employment rights of university faculty members amidst the transition of a state university to a central university. The appellants, seasoned educators appointed between 2004 and 2007 under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, challenged the retention of their service rights following the conversion of Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University (HNB Garhwal University) into a central university governed by the Central Universities Act, 2009. The crux of the dispute centered on whether their appointments remained substantive and secure under the new legislative framework.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, upon reviewing the appeals filed by the faculty members, overturned the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court's decision dated August 19, 2013. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' appointments, though initially contractual, embodied a substantive character due to the adherence to the selection process prescribed under the Act 1973. The Court emphasized that the conversion of the university to a central university did not dissolve the rights accrued by the faculty members, thereby entitling them to be treated as substantively appointed members of the central university. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the previous High Court judgment was quashed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The appellants referenced notable Supreme Court judgments to bolster their case:

Arjun Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2015) 15 SCC 713 – This judgment underscored the imperativeness of adhering to established appointment procedures to safeguard employment rights.
ABDUL HAKEEM M.A. v. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY (2019) 16 SCC 328 – This case highlighted the necessity of protecting faculty members' rights during institutional transitions, ensuring continuity and fairness in employment practices.

These precedents emphasized the judiciary's role in upholding the integrity of employment processes and protecting individuals against arbitrary administrative changes.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's reasoning was multifaceted:

Substantive Appointment: The Court delved into the concept of "substantive appointment," drawing definitions from service jurisprudence and various state service rules. It concluded that appointments made following the prescribed selection process, irrespective of their initial contractual nature, possess a substantive character.
Adherence to Procedural Safeguards: The appellants had undergone a rigorous selection process under the Act 1973, including interviews and executive council approvals, which fortified the substantive nature of their appointments.
Protection Under Conversion: Upon the university's conversion to a central university under the Act 2009, Section 4(d) of the Act provided for the protection of existing employees' terms, ensuring continuity in their service conditions.
Non-Arbitrariness: The incorporation of arbitrary conditions post-selection was deemed violative of constitutional principles, notably Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Impact

This landmark judgment carries significant implications:

Employee Security Post-Institutional Changes: Faculty members who were appointed following statutory procedures retain their substantive employment rights, even if the governing legal framework of the institution changes.
Administrative Accountability: Universities and similar institutions must adhere strictly to prescribed selection and appointment processes. Deviations or arbitrary modifications can be legally challenged and overturned.
Precedent for Future Claims: The decision sets a robust precedent for public sector employees seeking to secure their employment status amidst legislative or administrative transformations.
Enhanced Bargaining Power for Employees: Although employers typically hold dominant positions, this judgment empowers employees to contest unfavorable or non-compliant employment conditions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal terminologies and concepts in the judgment warrant clarification:

Substantive Appointment: This refers to an employment appointment that is genuine and not temporary or ad hoc. It signifies a stable and secure position within an organization, following due process and fulfilling all legal requisites.
Self-Financing Scheme: A model where certain departments or courses within a university generate their own revenue, thereby bearing their financial liabilities independently of the main university funds.
Executive Council: A primary decision-making body within a university, responsible for administrative and academic decisions, including faculty appointments.
AICTE/PCI Norms: Standards set by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) to regulate educational institutions and ensure quality in technical and pharmaceutical education respectively.
Employee's Equal Bargaining Position: An assessment of power dynamics between employer and employee during negotiations. In this case, the employees were deemed to lack equal bargaining power, compelling them to accept the offered terms.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Somesh Thapliyal And Another v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University marks a significant reinforcement of employment rights within academic institutions. By recognizing the substantive nature of appointments made under established legal procedures, the Court ensures that faculty members are shielded from arbitrary administrative changes, especially during institutional conversions from state to central universities. This judgment not only upholds the principles of procedural fairness and equality but also fortifies the sanctity of employment processes in the public sector. Moving forward, educational institutions must meticulously adhere to constitutional and statutory mandates in their appointment practices, ensuring that the rights and interests of their academic staff are invariably protected.

Substantive Appointment of University Faculty Post-Conversion: Insights from Somesh Thapliyal v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University