Section 9 in THE UNIVERSITY SERVICE REGULATION, 2001
9.
-10 8.9-8.0 7.9-6.5 6.4-5.5 5.4 and lessAn employee evaluated at 5.4 and less (below satisfactory) shall not be entitled for renewal/extension of contract.An employee evaluated at 5.5 to 6.4 (satisfactory) shall be entitled for renewal of contract with the advise of performing better in futureS/Reg/40- The services of an employee shall be liable to be terminated without any notice if such an employee is held guilty, by any competent court for any offenceinvolving moral turpitude.S/Reg/41- On proven charges of willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to University, the employee shall, even after end of contractual service, be liable to compensate the University to the extent of damage or loss so caused for which appropriate proceedings for civil and criminal action may be instituted in the competent court.S/Reg/42- Absence from duty after expiry of leave and absence without leave shall be considered to be misconduct and shall entail disciplinary action and may result intermination of contractual services.S/Reg/43- In the case of Faculty Members, provisions of ‘Code of Professional Ethics’, as approved by the Executive Council of the University in its XXV meetingconvened on January 17, 2015, shall apply mutatis-mutandis.[ In the case of Prashant Mehta v. National Law University, Jodhpur, 2019, it was held that NLU Jodhpur Regulations allowing contractual employment of teachers are struck down for being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21. A Division Bench of P.K. Lohra and Arun Bhansali, JJ. struck down the impugned University Service Regulations, 2001 by declaring them ultra vires. The Court held that right to life with human dignity with minimum sustenance and shelter, including all those rights and aspects of life which would go to make a man’s life complete and worth living, would form part of life. Therefore, on joining government service, a person does not mortgage or barter away his basic rights as a human being, including his fundamental right in favour of the Government. The University being a statutory body was not expected to employ teachers and other officials on contract/ ad hoc basis for years together, more particularly when the duties and functions discharged by them were of perennial nature. It was held that it is necessary to do away with total contractual appointment amongst teachers. In view of the above, the Court held the impugned Service Regulations 5, 6 and amended Regulations 37 and 38 which allowed employment of teachers on a contractual basis, to be manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable. The Court further held that the impugned Service Regulations were in clear negation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Service regulations 5, 6 and amended Regulations 37 and 38 were declared as ultra vires and the same were struck down. (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/180877490/,https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/06/06/raj-hc-nlu-jodhpur-regulations-allowing-contractual-employment-of-teachers-struck-down-for-being-arbitrary-and-violative-of-articles-14-16-and-21/)]
