TU Recruitment Practices Come Under Strong Judicial Scrutiny, High Court Finds Arbitrary and Illegal Actions Against Contractual Lecturer
By Our Correspondent
Agartala, September 18, 2026
In a significant judgment delivered on Thursday, the Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura has set aside the earlier judgment of the Single Judge and directed Tripura University to reinstate and regularise Smt. Jayanti Bhattacharjee, holding that the University had acted arbitrarily and illegally at several stages of her nearly 15-year association with the institution.
The judgment, delivered in W.A. No.60 of 2024, Smt. Jayanti Bhattacharjee vs. Tripura University and others, was pronounced by Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit on September 17, 2026. The judgment was reserved on August 25, 2026 and has been marked fit for reporting. The case arose out of the earlier judgment dated January 9, 2024 in W.P.(C) No.940 of 2022, which had dismissed Jayanti Bhattacharjee's writ petition.
The appellant, Smt. Jayanti Bhattacharjee, wife of Sri Suman Bhattacharjee, was represented before the Division Bench by Mr. Somik Deb, Senior Advocate, Mr. Jishan Samed, Advocate, Ms. Adwitiya Chakraborty, Advocate, and Ms. Rijuka Roy Barman, Advocate. Tripura University, the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar were represented by Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, Senior Advocate, Mr. Agniva Chakraborty, Advocate, and Mr. Tapas Kr. Debbarma, Advocate. The respondents were Tripura University, represented by its Registrar; the Vice-Chancellor, Tripura University; and the Registrar, Tripura University.
The judgment records that Tripura University is a Central University and an instrumentality of the State, falling within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. The dispute dates back to an advertisement issued by the University on June 4, 2008, inviting applications for a Lecturer in the BBA Programme on contractual basis for one year, extendable annually. The prescribed qualification was M.Com with a minimum of 55 per cent marks, along with the ability to teach subjects including Business Management, Business Communication, Financial Management, Human Resource Management and Management Accounting. Selection was to be through an interview board.
Jayanti Bhattacharjee, who had obtained an M.Com degree from Tripura University itself with 63 per cent marks and First Class, applied for the post and was selected by the Interview Board on July 20, 2008. An appointment order was subsequently issued and she joined as Lecturer in the BBA Programme on February 4, 2009, on a monthly remuneration of Rs.15,000. She continued as Lecturer through periodic contractual extensions for about seven years.
The controversy intensified on February 2, 2016, when the University re-designated her as Assistant Placement Officer (Contractual) and placed her in the Business Management Department. The judgment records that the proceeding did not disclose the reason for this re-designation. Bhattacharjee repeatedly protested and sought restoration of her teaching position. The Court also noted that the University's explanation regarding her qualifications relied upon UGC requirements that were not applicable to the Management subject in question.
A major issue before the Division Bench was whether Bhattacharjee's original appointment was against a sanctioned post. The University argued that the BBA programme had initially been operated with contractual teachers and that the posts were not sanctioned regular posts. The Court examined the University's records and the UGC communication dated February 16, 2009. It found that the UGC had approved two additional Lecturer posts but that the University's documents did not establish that the nine Lecturer posts already occupied by contractual teachers had been created only pursuant to that approval.
The Court went considerably further. It observed that when the University had started BBA and MBA programmes from the 2003-04 academic session and continued them thereafter, it should reasonably have anticipated the need for regular teaching posts. According to the judgment, the University's decision to commence and continue the BBA programme by employing Lecturers only on contract without creating regular sanctioned posts was “arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable.” The Court also held that the University could not take advantage of its own failure to create sanctioned posts.
The Bench also examined whether Bhattacharjee actually possessed the requisite qualification when she was recruited in 2008. The University had relied upon later UGC regulations and guidelines. The Court rejected that approach, holding that later changes in recruitment qualifications could not retrospectively be imposed upon an appointment made under the 2008 advertisement. The Court specifically found that the University had failed to produce the rule or regulation applicable on June 4, 2008 which would establish that Bhattacharjee lacked the required qualification.
The judgment records that the University itself had prescribed M.Com with 55 per cent marks and experience in its 2008 advertisement, and Bhattacharjee had subsequently been selected by a Selection Committee and her appointment approved by the Executive Council. The Court therefore held that the University could not subsequently rely upon the 2018 UGC Guidelines or an inapplicable 2000 UGC regulation to contend that she lacked the qualification at the time of her appointment.
The Court also rejected the University's reliance upon an AICTE handbook of December 2005 because that handbook dealt with postgraduate programmes in Business Administration and related courses and did not deal with the Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) programme for which Bhattacharjee had been appointed. The Bench held that the University's own advertisement and Executive Council approval prevented it from subsequently contending that she did not possess the prescribed qualification.
Another important finding concerned the University's decision to re-designate her from Lecturer to Assistant Placement Officer. The University had contended that the change was connected with her alleged lack of the minimum UGC qualification and subsequently raised the discontinuation of the BBA programme as another explanation. The Court found serious problems with these explanations. It noted that the BBA programme was allegedly discontinued only later, while the re-designation had already occurred on February 2, 2016. The Court therefore concluded that the subsequent discontinuation could not have been the actual reason for the earlier decision.
In an especially strong observation, the Division Bench held that the respondents were deliberately trying to mislead the Court by advancing what it described as a false plea regarding the reason for the re-designation and expressly deprecated the conduct of the respondents. The Court held that Bhattacharjee had been wrongly treated as lacking the requisite qualification and had been re-designated without a valid reason. It consequently characterised the re-designation as arbitrary and illegal.
The salary issue provided another significant aspect of the judgment. From January 2022, the University stopped paying her salary even though she continued to perform her duties. After repeated representations, the Registrar issued an order dated September 30, 2022 converting her remuneration to Rs.1,200 per working day, retrospectively from January 3, 2022. The order calculated Rs.1,82,400 as wages for the period from January 3 to August 20, 2022.
The High Court had earlier intervened several times during the writ proceedings. On November 7, 2022, it suspended the University's order converting her status to that of a daily-wage worker, observing prima facie that the order was arbitrary and altered her status. On March 13, 2023, the Court directed that her status should not be altered. On September 22, 2023, it directed payment of salary arrears and continuation of salary at the level applicable before the September 30, 2022 order. On October 6, 2023, the University was further directed to pay Rs.2,64,591, in addition to Rs.7,26,596 already credited to her salary account.
The Division Bench ultimately found the September 30, 2022 decision legally unsustainable. The Court noted that the University had given no reason for converting her remuneration into daily wages, had not issued prior notice and had not provided her a hearing. It therefore found a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court declared the decision arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and set it aside.
The question of regularisation was also examined in detail. The Single Judge had relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) and held that contractual employment did not create a right to regularisation. The Division Bench, however, held that the facts of Bhattacharjee's case were materially different. She had been selected through a public advertisement and interview, had worked continuously for years and had performed duties indistinguishable from those associated with regular employment.
Relying upon subsequent Supreme Court decisions including Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India, Jaggo vs. Union of India, Dharam Singh & Others vs. State of UP, Shripal & Another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, and Bholanath vs. State of Jharkhand, the Bench emphasised the distinction between an illegal appointment and an irregular appointment and held that long and continuous service cannot automatically be disregarded merely because the original appointment was described as contractual.
The Court observed that State instrumentalities, including a Central University, are expected to act as model employers, with high standards of probity, fairness and candour. It held that public institutions cannot exploit employees or take advantage of their vulnerability or unequal bargaining position.
The Bench also examined allegations made by the University that Bhattacharjee was allegedly unruly, insubordinate and undisciplined. The Court described these assertions as appearing to be an afterthought and lacking credibility. The judgment further states that the allegations appeared to have been raised only after she challenged the University's actions through litigation. These are findings of the Court concerning the respondents' pleadings in this particular case.
At the same time, the Court did not direct her regularisation as Lecturer/Assistant Professor. Since she had not worked as a teacher for more than a decade after her re-designation in 2016, the Bench held that she could not at this stage be regularised in the Lecturer/Assistant Professor post. Instead, taking into account her actual service from February 2, 2016 onward as Assistant Placement Officer, the Court directed regularisation in that post.
The Division Bench summarised its principal conclusions in paragraph 129 of the judgment. It held that her original appointment as Lecturer on February 4, 2009 could not be treated as an appointment outside a sanctioned post; that she possessed the necessary qualification when selected in July 2008; that her appointment followed a regular recruitment process; that the University had arbitrarily and illegally re-designated her as Assistant Placement Officer on February 2, 2016; and that the University's subsequent reduction of her remuneration to Rs.1,200 per working day violated natural justice and Article 14.
The final order is particularly significant. The High Court directed Tripura University to reinstate Jayanti Bhattacharjee as Assistant Placement Officer in the Business Management Department forthwith and, within one month, regularise her services in that post. The University has also been directed to pay her the regular scale of pay and allowances applicable to the post. Her entire service from February 4, 2009 is to be counted as qualifying service for pension and other retirement benefits.
In addition, the respondents have been directed to pay Rs.25,000 as costs to the appellant within four weeks. The Court disposed of all other pending applications.
more news...