The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that an employee, whose appointment may have been irregular at the outset but was later confirmed, cannot be removed from service without following due process. A division bench led by Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice S.K. Kait reinstated Narendra Tripathi, a university employee terminated after 25 years of dedicated service.
Narendra Tripathi joined Barkatullah University in Bhopal as a Project Officer on December 16, 1998, following a resolution passed by the university’s Executive Council. Over the years, he received revised pay scales under the Sixth and Seventh Pay Commissions, financial benefits from the state government, and was even allowed to pursue a Ph.D. in 2017. He was confirmed in service by an official order dated May 30, 2012.
Read Also:- MP High Court Orders Transfer of Head Constable Accused of Rape Amid Probe Manipulation Allegations
Despite this, on February 21, 2024, the university issued a sudden termination order. The university claimed that his original appointment was illegal, alleging that university statutes and reservation rules had been violated during his recruitment. This action came after a quo warranto petition filed by one Bhagwan Rajput questioned the legality of his appointment.
No show cause notice was issued to Tripathi before the termination. The university acted unilaterally, despite the petition being dismissed by the High Court earlier.
Read Also:- MP High Court Demands Report on Legal Aid Gaps for Undertrial Prisoners and Convicts
Tripathi challenged the dismissal, arguing that after 25 years of confirmed service, the university could not terminate him arbitrarily. He cited the Supreme Court ruling in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, emphasizing that his confirmation in 2012 had regularized any irregularities. He also relied on Clause 57(3) of Statute 31 and Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services Rules, 1966, which require a formal inquiry before terminating a confirmed employee.
The university argued that Tripathi’s appointment was void from the beginning, claiming that he had been appointed temporarily without following due procedure and that the position was not legitimately vacant.
“Tripathi’s appointment was irregular but not illegal.”
The court made several important observations:
- Long-standing Service: Tripathi had served the institution for over 25 years and was now over the age limit to seek alternative employment. No misconduct was alleged against him.
- Discrimination: The court noted that while Tripathi was singled out, other similarly appointed employees (over 48 others) faced no action. Of the 163 employees originally under scrutiny, only Tripathi's case led to dismissal.
“Selective targeting of one employee while others continue unscathed violates the principle of equality.”
- Legal Clarification: Referring to a 2008 state circular and the Uma Devi judgment, the court clarified that appointments against sanctioned posts without full procedural compliance are “irregular,” not “illegal,” and can be regularized.
- Confirmed Status: Since Tripathi’s service was formally confirmed in 2012, any defect in his appointment was regularized. Hence, his termination without inquiry was unlawful.
The court concluded that his termination was both arbitrary and illegal. It reinstated Tripathi with 50% back wages from the dismissal of his earlier writ petition and full salary from the date of this judgment.
Case Title: Narendra Tripathi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case No.: W.A. 1610 of 2024
Counsel for the Appellant: Shri L. C. Patne, Shri Abhay Pandey, Shri Siddharth Saroha and Shri Akash
Counsel for the Respondents: Shri Prashant Singh (Advocate General) and Shri Amit Seth (Additional Advocate General) assisted by Shri Sahil Sonkusale for the State, University and Vice Chancellor; Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari for the Executive Council of the University
