Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. He further submitted that can a tenure track contract be said to have determined itself without there having been a tenure review. He submitted that as per the appointment letter, faculty employment contract, and UGC Regulation (supra), the tenure review is inherent to the contract, it means a contract cannot be determined without adhering to the condition Patna High Court CWJC No.3979 of 2020 dt.10-12-2024 precedent of review. A crystallised right to tenure review cannot be defeated by the efflux of time. Additionally, the para 11 of the regulation mentioned about the "Period of Probation and Confirmation." Para 11.2 mentioned that the teacher on probation shall be confirmed at the end of one year, unless extended by another year through a specific order, before expiry of the first year. Consequently, in the case at present, the contractual period of original employment contract of the petitioner was indeed extended for another year before the expiry of his probation period. Lastly, the para 11.3 of the said regulation mentioned that "subject to clause 11 of this Regulation, it is obligatory on the part of the university/the concerned institution to issue an order of confirmation to the incumbents within 45 days of completion of the probation period after following the due process of verification of satisfactory performance." However, in the case at hand, no tenure review has taken place around or after the expiry of the extended contract period, neither any other report or notice of non-confirmation was given to the petitioner within 45 days. Thus, considering the UGC Regulation, petitioner's appointment stands confirmed on 45th day. In any case, the decision of non-confirmation or non-renewal can only be taken Patna High Court CWJC No.3979 of 2020 dt.10-12-2024 by the appointing authority i.e., the Governing Board and only upon the requisite tenure review having been conducted, but the petitioner had received first notice of non-confirmation or non- renewal of the contract was issued on the 48th day i.e., 18.02.2019, under the signature of the Registrar but without approval of Governing Board. In the present case, not mere approval but an active decision of the Governing Board is required.

17. On the other hand, Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the University, advocating the correctness, legality and validity of the impugned order, has submitted that the petitioner was under the probation and the term of the contract in probation could not be extended in his absentia, therefore, this is not a case of termination, rather non- extension of term along with leave in absentia.

18. He further submitted that Section 33 (1) of the Nalanda University Act, 2010 clearly demarcates that "Every employee of the University shall be appointed under a written Patna High Court CWJC No.3979 of 2020 dt.10-12-2024 contract, which shall be lodged with the University and a copy of which shall be furnished to the employee concerned". Clause 1.1 of the Faculty Employment Contract specifically stipulates that "the entire period of the contract shall be probationary." Also, the extension of one year given to the petitioner based upon the existing terms and conditions of contract, it means that extended period is also probationary.

25. It further appears that on 01.01.2015, the petitioner joined the University and relocated to Rajgir. On 24.11.2015, an agreement was entered into between the parties, where it was stated that the petitioner is appointed as "Assistant Professor on a full time employment within the School of Historical Studies ........ and this is a tenure track position for a period of 3 years between 01.01.2015 to 01.01.2018." Clause 1.1 of the terms of employment clearly stipulates that following the review process, on completion of the contract, the services of the Employee may be considered for confirmation or termination. In terms of the Faculty Employment Contract, there would be a Tenure Review during the academic year 2017-2018 but this did not happen rather the petitioner was informed by the Officiating Registrar of the University that his Tenure Track Patna High Court CWJC No.3979 of 2020 dt.10-12-2024 position is extended for a further year from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018, on the existing terms and conditions and the said tenure review would take place in the subsequent year.

28. It further appears that as the contract between the petitioner and University was soon drawing to a close and he was not available in India for the Tenure Review so based on the clause 1.1 and clause 3 of the Faculty Employment Contract, the petitioner sent a letter on 22.10.2018 to the University reiterating his request for extension with effect from 01.01.2019. The petitioner followed up this letter on the telephone on several occasions, and throughout all these interactions he was repeatedly assured by officers of the University that the decision would be positive. As the contract period expired on 31.12.2018 and the petitioner had not received a formal response from the Patna High Court CWJC No.3979 of 2020 dt.10-12-2024 University, he again sent a letter dated 15.01.2019 directly to the Vice Chancellor of the University raising his grievance. On 30.01.2019, the petitioner sent yet another reminder to the University. On 18.02.2019, the petitioner received the office order by which the petitioner was informed that your terms as Faculty (Assistant Professor-on contract) in School of historical studies has come to close on December 31, 2018. I have perused the said office order which did not provide any details of the reasons why the petitioner's Tenure Track as Assistant Professor had been terminated without conducting a Tenure Review rather it wrongly referred to his position as 'Faculty (Assistant Professor on contract)'.