# S C SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1075
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-12-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 11856 of 2018
- **Bench:** U. U. Lalit, Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-c-singh-v-state-of-uttarakhand-and-ors-32383
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Service Law - University-Second respondent passed
resolution terminating College Development Council (CDC) -
Challenged by the appellant-Director of CDC - High Court quashed
the resolution directing that while the CDC will continue, it will be
without the Appellant as its Director - Plea of appellant that the
tenure limitation for two terms of three years can only apply to those
Directors appointed on deputation - Held: Terms of the
advertisement issued by the University calling for applications for
the posts in the newly constituted CDC are material - Appellant
was put to notice that his appointment was for three years - Though
the office order by which the Appellant was appointed as Director,
CDC does not mention a tenure, however, it cannot be said that the
Appellant was not put to notice that his appointment to the post of
Director, CDC was for three years - Appointment was in terms of
the advertisement - Further, Clause 3 of the 'Revised Guidelines
for the Establishment of College Development Council' deals with
the appointment of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC -
Merely because in the said clause, the sentence providing for tenure
limitation follows the sentence on deputationists, it cannot be said
that the tenure limitation applies only to deputationists - Tenure
limitation applies to every person who is appointed to the post -
Having served the tenure laid down by the revised guidelines, the
Appellant cannot continue as Director, CDC.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The terms of the advertisement issued by the
University calling for applications for the posts in the newly
constituted CDC are material. The Appellant was put to notice
that his appointment was for a period of three years. Though the
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1075
1075
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
office order by which the Appellant was appointed as Director,
CDC does not mention a tenure, it cannot be said that the
Appellant was not put to notice that his appointment to the post
of Director, CDC was for a period of three years. The appointment
was in terms of the advertisement. [Para 9][1079-E-H]
1.2 The Clause 3 of the 'Revised Guidelines for the
Establishment of College Development Council' deals with the
appointment of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. When
the clause is read as a whole, the word "he" is used to indicate
the pay scale and the tenure of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of
the CDC. The sentence on deputationists is merely to provide
that those persons on deputation will be eligible for deputation
allowance and other permissible allowances. The clause read as
a whole, deals with the conditions for the appointment of the
Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. Hence, it cannot be held
that merely because the sentence providing for a tenure limitation
follows the sentence on deputationists, the tenure limitation
applies only to deputationists. The tenure limitation applies to
every person who is appointed to the post. The Appellant has
admittedly served out the tenure as Director, CDC of two terms
of three years each. Having served the tenure laid down by the
revised guidelines, the Appellant cannot continue as Director,
CDC. [Paras 12, 13][1080-E-H]

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1075
S C SINGH
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11856 of 2018)
DECEMBER 05, 2018
[U. U. LALIT AND
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Service Law - University-Second respondent passed
resolution terminating College Development Council (CDC) -
Challenged by the appellant-Director of CDC - High Court quashed
the resolution directing that while the CDC will continue, it will be
without the Appellant as its Director - Plea of appellant that the
tenure limitation for two terms of three years can only apply to those
Directors appointed on deputation - Held: Terms of the
advertisement issued by the University calling for applications for
the posts in the newly constituted CDC are material - Appellant
was put to notice that his appointment was for three years - Though
the office order by which the Appellant was appointed as Director,
CDC does not mention a tenure, however, it cannot be said that the
Appellant was not put to notice that his appointment to the post of
Director, CDC was for three years - Appointment was in terms of
the advertisement - Further, Clause 3 of the 'Revised Guidelines
for the Establishment of College Development Council' deals with
the appointment of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC -
Merely because in the said clause, the sentence providing for tenure
limitation follows the sentence on deputationists, it cannot be said
that the tenure limitation applies only to deputationists - Tenure
limitation applies to every person who is appointed to the post -
Having served the tenure laid down by the revised guidelines, the
Appellant cannot continue as Director, CDC.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The terms of the advertisement issued by the
University calling for applications for the posts in the newly
constituted CDC are material. The Appellant was put to notice
that his appointment was for a period of three years. Though the
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1075
1075
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
office order by which the Appellant was appointed as Director,
CDC does not mention a tenure, it cannot be said that the
Appellant was not put to notice that his appointment to the post
of Director, CDC was for a period of three years. The appointment
was in terms of the advertisement. [Para 9][1079-E-H]
1.2 The Clause 3 of the 'Revised Guidelines for the
Establishment of College Development Council' deals with the
appointment of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. When
the clause is read as a whole, the word "he" is used to indicate
the pay scale and the tenure of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of
the CDC. The sentence on deputationists is merely to provide
that those persons on deputation will be eligible for deputation
allowance and other permissible allowances. The clause read as
a whole, deals with the conditions for the appointment of the
Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. Hence, it cannot be held
that merely because the sentence providing for a tenure limitation
follows the sentence on deputationists, the tenure limitation
applies only to deputationists. The tenure limitation applies to
every person who is appointed to the post. The Appellant has
admittedly served out the tenure as Director, CDC of two terms
of three years each. Having served the tenure laid down by the
revised guidelines, the Appellant cannot continue as Director,
CDC. [Paras 12, 13][1080-E-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11856
of 2018.
From the final Order dated 28.12.2011 of the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No.429 of 2006 (S/B).
With
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 196/2014 in S.L.P. (Civil) No.10084
of 2012.
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Rakesh Kumar
Tewari, Krishna Kant Dubey, Devendra Kumar Shukla, Shuchi Singh,
Kapish Seth, Satish Vig, Advs. for the Appellant.
Jatinder Kumar Sethi, DAG, Rajiv Nanda, Dr. Kartidey Hari Gupta,
Vinodh Kanna B., M. B. Ramasubnba Raju, Somyashree Kulkarni,
V. Sudeer, Balaji Srinivasan, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1077
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal in the present case arises from the judgment of a
Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand dated 28 December
20111. The High Court quashed a Resolution dated 29 July 2006, being
Resolution No. 23 of the 76th General Meeting of the Executive Council
of the Second Respondent2. By that resolution, the College Development
Council3 was terminated with immediate effect. The Appellant, who
was a Director of the CDC, has filed the present appeal, aggrieved by
the direction of the High Court that while the CDC will continue, it will
be without the Appellant as its Director.
3. On the request of the Second Respondent, the University Grants
Commission4 agreed to set up a CDC if an assurance was communicated
by the Government of Uttar Pradesh that it would bear the financial
liability after 31 March 1995. By a letter dated 31 October 1991, the
Government of Uttar Pradesh agreed to bear all the expenses incurred
on the post of Director, CDC after 31 March 1995. By a letter dated 07
November 1991, the UGC agreed to the request of the University to set
up a CDC with two posts - (i) A Director in the Professor's scale; and
(ii) A stenographer. An advertisement inviting applications for the above
posts was issued on 06 January 1992. The Appellant was appointed as
Director, CDC through open selection by an office order dated 02
November 1992 of the Second Respondent. On 23 January 1996, the
Appellant was permanently absorbed.
4. In 2003, the University shifted the office of the CDC from
Srinagar to Dehradun. The Appellant filed a writ petition5 before the
High Court of Uttarakhand challenging the order of transfer. On 09
December 2005, the University transferred the Appellant to the Swami
Ramtirth Campus, New Tehri. On 30 June 2006, disciplinary proceedings
were initiated against the Appellant and he was suspended. The order of
suspension was stayed on an interim application in the above writ petition,
1In Writ Petition No 429 of 2006
2Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar
3CDC
4UGC
5Writ Petition (SB) No 7 of 2006
S C SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
on 10 July 2006. On 19 July 2006, the High Court of Uttarakhand disposed
of the writ petition by revoking the suspension, subject to the Appellant
joining service at Srinagar. However, the disciplinary proceedings were
not stayed.
5. At the 76th General Meeting of its Executive Council, the
University passed a resolution to abolish the post of CDC on the ground
that the permission of the government for bearing the financial burden
of the CDC was not received and it was not legally created. Challenging
this resolution, the Appellant filed a writ petition6 before the High Court
of Uttarakhand, from which the present appeal arises. The High Court
relied on the 'Revised Guidelines for the Establishment of College
Development Council in Universities' issued by the UGC for the
establishment of the CDC. Clause 3 of the revised guidelines deals with
tenure of the Director, thus:
"He may be appointed on a tenure basis for three years, extendable
for another terms of three years, but not beyond the age of 65
years, when he would retire."
The High Court observed that the Government of Uttar Pradesh
agreed to bear the expenses to be incurred in respect of the post of
Director, CDC. However, the University did not obtain reimbursement
from the State Government for the expenses incurred. Ruling that the
University could not hold out that there was no assurance by the State
Government to take over the liability of the CDC after 31 March 1995,
the High Court quashed Resolution No. 23 of the 76th General Meeting
of the Executive Council by which the post of the CDC was sought to
be abolished. This ruling of the High Court is not challenged. On the
question whether the Appellant should be allowed to continue as Director,
CDC, the High Court observed that he was admittedly appointed under
the scheme envisaged by the revised guidelines issued by the UGC and
could only work for two tenures of three years. Noting that the Appellant
had already served two terms of three years, the High Court held that
the CDC will continue, but without the Appellant as its Director. It is this
direction of the High Court, refusing the Appellant's continuation as
Director, CDC that forms the basis of the present appeal. The High
Court directed that the University to complete the adjustment of the
Appellant as mentioned in Resolution No. 23 of the 76th General Meeting
6Writ Petition No 429 of 2006
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1079
of the Executive Council. The High Court held that the submission that
the term limit in the revised guidelines applies only to deputationists has
no merit since the deputationists are also people associated with higher
education and at the relevant time when the revised guidelines were
issued, the retirement age of persons associated with higher education
would be much less than 65 years.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Mr Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant
submitted that the office order dated 02 November 1992 by which the
Appellant was appointed as Director, CDC did not mention that he is
being appointed on deputation or on a tenure basis. The main contention
put forth for the Appellant is that applying the principle of ejusdem
generis, the tenure limitation of two terms of three years in Clause 3 of
the revised guidelines can only apply to those Directors appointed on a
deputation basis. It was further contended that once the Appellant was
absorbed, the tenure limitation which applied only to deputationists, did
not apply to him.
8. The learned counsel for the Respondent University submitted
on the other hand that the Appellant was put to notice that his appointment
was for a tenure of three years and that the tenure limitation of two
terms of three years applied to the post of Director, CDC and barred the
Appellant from continuing in the post after having served two terms.
9. The terms of the advertisement issued on 06 January 1992 by
the University calling for applications for the posts in the newly constituted
CDC are material. The relevant portion reads thus:
"Minimum qualification for Director are same as those for the
post of a Professor as prescribed by the University. Preference
will be given to the candidate who has dealt with academic
administration. The tenure of the Director, College
Development Council will be for 3 years." (Emphasis supplied)
The Appellant was put to notice that his appointment was for a
period of three years. Though the office order dated 02 November 1992
by which the Appellant was appointed as Director, CDC does not mention
a tenure, it cannot be said that the Appellant was not put to notice that
his appointment to the post of Director, CDC was for a period of three
years. The appointment was in terms of the advertisement.
S C SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
10. Clause 3 of the revised guidelines reads thus:
"3. The Coordinator/Director/Dean of the College Development
Council may be appointed by the Syndicate on the recommendation
of the Selection Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, as
Chairman, a nominee of the UGC, and a nominee of the Syndicate
of the University. He may be appointed in the scale of Rs. 15002500 plus other admissible allowances as per university rules.
Persons on deputation will be eligible for deputation and
other permissible allowances. He may be appointed on a
tenure basis for three years, extendable for another term of three
years, but not beyond the age of 65 years, when he would retire."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that the
sentence that provides for a tenure follows the sentence that states that
"persons on deputation will be eligible for deputation and other permissible
allowances" and hence, the tenure limitation applies only to those
appointed as deputationists. It is submitted that the word "he" appearing
at the beginning of the sentence and after the sentence permitting the
appointment of deputationists must be read together.
12. There is no merit in this contention. The clause deals with the
appointment of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. When the
clause is read as a whole, the word "he" is used to indicate the pay scale
and the tenure of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. The
sentence on deputationists is merely to provide that those persons on
deputation will be eligible for deputation allowance and other permissible
allowances. The clause read as a whole, deals with the conditions for
the appointment of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. Hence,
it cannot be held that merely because the sentence providing for a tenure
limitation follows the sentence on deputationists, the tenure limitation
applies only to deputationists. The tenure limitation applies to every person
who is appointed to the post.
13. The Appellant, who was appointed on 02 November 1992,
has admittedly served out the tenure as Director, CDC of two terms of
three years each. We are in agreement with the High Court that having
served the tenure laid down by the revised guidelines, the Appellant
cannot continue as Director, CDC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1081
14. For these reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court. The appeal shall stand dismissed. In view
of the appeal being dismissed, the contempt petition does not survive.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Divya Pandey
Appeal dismissed.
S C SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]