Safeguarding Academic Employment: A Critical Analysis of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979

Safeguarding Academic Employment: A Critical Analysis of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979

Introduction

The Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (“the 1979 Act”) was enacted with the twin objectives of protecting college employees from arbitrary employment actions and ensuring academic standards through regulated disciplinary mechanisms. Four decades later, the Act remains the principal instrument governing service security in aided and unaided affiliated colleges in Haryana. This article undertakes a doctrinal and jurisprudential examination of the Act, scrutinising key provisions, judicial interpretation, and contemporary challenges, while integrating relevant case law and statutory comparators across India.

Historical Context and Legislative Intent

The 1970s witnessed widespread unrest among college teachers across northern India owing to abrupt dismissals, delayed salaries and tenuous service conditions. Punjab responded with the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1974; Haryana followed suit with the 1979 Act, modelled substantially on the Punjab statute but tailored to the administrative architecture of Haryana’s higher-education sector. Legislative debates emphasised that state financial aid to private colleges generated a legitimate public interest in regulating service conditions, whilst respecting the autonomy of managements run by religious, linguistic or charitable bodies, thereby delicately negotiating Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 of the Constitution.

Statutory Framework of the 1979 Act

1. Definitions and Scope (Ss. 2 & 3)

  • Affiliated college—a non-government college admitted to the privileges of a State university (s 2(a)).
  • Managing Committee—the governing body or any person/body for the time being entrusted with the college’s management (s 2(e)).
  • The Act applies to every employee—teaching or non-teaching—of an affiliated college receiving any form of State aid; purely temporary appointments for a fixed period constitute the sole statutory exclusion (s 3).

2. Security of Service & Disciplinary Procedure (s 7)

Section 7 is the fulcrum of the Act, mandating:

“No employee shall be dismissed, removed, reduced in rank, or have annual increments withheld with cumulative effect except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charge and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard… The penalty… shall not be imposed unless approved by the Director.” (s 7(1)–(2))

The Director of Higher Education’s (“DHE”) ex-ante approval operates as an external check against managerial arbitrariness, ensuring audi alteram partem compliance and parity across institutions. Sub-sections (3)–(4) further entitle the employee to represent before the DHE, embedding a quasi-judicial tier within the executive framework.

3. Appellate and Revisional Jurisdiction (s 9 & s 11)

  • Appeal—Aggrieved employees may appeal to the DHE within 30 days against minor penalties (s 9).
  • Revision—The State Government may, suo motu or on application, revise any DHE order after hearing the parties (s 11). Courts have treated this power as quasi-judicial, attracting natural-justice rigour.

4. Penal Provision for Violation (s 14)

Section 14 empowers the Government to impose monetary penalties on managements violating the Act or rules. In DAV College Trust v. State of Haryana (2017), an appellate authority invoked s 14(2) to direct the management to pay staff salary for two months as “penalty”. The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed this portion for breach of audi alteram partem, but upheld the Government’s competence to act under s 14 after due procedure[1].

5. Overriding Effect (s 13)

The Act overrides any contradictory law, rule, regulation or university ordinance. Decisions such as G.M.N. College v. State of Haryana (2013) reaffirm that the 1979 Act prevails over the 2006 Service Rules whenever inconsistency exists[2].

Judicial Interpretation: Key Themes

A. Due Process and Section 7 Enquiries

A consistent judicial refrain is that non-compliance with Section 7 vitiates disciplinary action. In Dr. (Mrs.) Saroj Kumari v. State of Haryana (2011) the High Court stayed proposed action because no charge-sheet had been served and the enquiry committee’s “secret report” contravened s 7(1)’s notice requirement[3]. Likewise, in Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana (2013) the Court emphasised that suspension pending enquiry must be viewed against the statutory timeline—extended suspension without timely enquiry offends both the Act and university ordinances.

B. Approval and Appellate Structures

Sanjay Kumar v. Managing Committee, Seth Jai Parkash Institute (2006) illustrates the Director’s appellate jurisdiction: a probationary lecturer’s termination was amenable to appeal, and the High Court compelled the Director to decide it notwithstanding the management's invocation of T.M.A. Pai Foundation[4]. The Court distinguished academic autonomy from statutory service protection where institutions receive grant-in-aid.

C. Penalties under Section 14

In DAV College Trust (supra) the High Court invalidated the DHE’s penalty order for breach of natural justice but affirmed the statutory basis of s 14. The judgment underscores that procedural safeguards govern even punitive measures against managements, reinforcing rule-of-law values embedded in the Act.

D. Suspension, Probation and Confirmation

Drawing on the analogous Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (1996) under the Punjab Act, the Court held that where suspension exceeds six months without requisite approval, reinstatement and full salary follow automatically[5]. The principle has informed Haryana jurisprudence, with courts reading s 7 and university ordinances conjunctively to curb indefinite suspensions.

E. Autonomy versus Regulation Post-T.M.A. Pai

Managements frequently cite the Supreme Court’s landmark T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) to resist statutory oversight. However, Haryana courts have clarified that the Act represents a “reasonable restriction” under Article 19(6) designed to protect public interest where colleges receive State financial aid. In Gandhi Adarsh College v. State of Haryana (2013) the Court reaffirmed that even unaided colleges fall within the Act’s ambit until the Legislature amends it expressly.

F. Comparative and Analogous Jurisprudence

  • Punjab Act, 1974—Haryana courts often rely on Punjab precedents because the statutory language is analogous (Hindu Education Society v. Pasrija, 1995).
  • Other State Enactments—The Chhattisgarh High Court in Kamladevi Sangeet Mahavidyalaya (2015) held that, absent explicit repeal, earlier security-of-service provisions continue to coexist with later comprehensive university statutes, reflecting the presumption against repeal by implication[6]. The reasoning is instructive for interpreting s 13’s overriding effect in Haryana.

Doctrinal and Policy Analysis

1. Embedding Natural Justice

The Act codifies audi alteram partem through mandatory charge-sheet, enquiry, and representation stages. Case law demonstrates judicial vigilance in enforcing these safeguards, aligning with constitutional due-process jurisprudence (A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, 1969).

2. Balancing Stakeholder Interests

  • Faculty—Guaranteed security fosters academic freedom and attracts talent.
  • Management—Retains autonomy to discipline, but subject to transparent, reviewable procedure.
  • State—Ensures public funds advance educational objectives, not private caprice.

3. Federal and Constitutional Dimensions

Education is now a Concurrent-List subject (Entry 25, List III), enabling States to legislate on service security while Parliament frames overarching norms (e.g., UGC Regulations). The 1979 Act must thus be harmonised with central standards under Article 254; to date, no repugnancy has been judicially declared.

Contemporary Challenges and Recommendations

  1. Delayed Adjudication—Appeals languish before the DHE; constituting an independent Educational Service Tribunal under Article 323-B could expedite disposal.
  2. Digital Transparency—Mandatory online publication of enquiry notices, DHE approvals, and penalty orders would reduce disputes over service of documents.
  3. Alignment with UGC Regulations—Clarify via amendment that disciplinary norms co-exist with UGC’s 2018 regulations on minimum qualifications and service conditions.
  4. Clarifying Unaided-College Coverage—Legislative explanation is advisable to pre-empt autonomy litigation post-T.M.A. Pai.

Conclusion

The Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979 remains a cornerstone of higher-education labour regulation. Judicial interpretation has fortified its procedural architecture, ensuring that managerial autonomy yields to due process where livelihoods are at stake. Yet, evolving constitutional jurisprudence and sectoral dynamics demand calibrated reforms to preserve the Act’s relevance. A judicious blend of legislative fine-tuning and administrative efficiency will sustain the delicate equilibrium between academic freedom and employment security that the 1979 Act so presciently sought to achieve.

Footnotes

  1. DAV College Trust and Management Society v. State of Haryana, CWP-28421-2013, P&H HC (30 May 2017).
  2. G.M.N. College v. State of Haryana, CWP-15631-2011, P&H HC (2013).
  3. Dr. (Mrs.) Saroj Kumari v. State of Haryana, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 12126.
  4. Sanjay Kumar v. Managing Committee, Seth Jai Parkash Institute, 2006 SCC OnLine P&H 1064.
  5. Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 SCC OnLine P&H 448.
  6. Kamladevi Sangeet Mahavidyalaya v. Chairman, Governing Body, 2015 SCC OnLine Chh 114.