Court holds that Tripura University's arbitrary redesignation and wage reduction of contractual employee violated principles of natural justice and Article 14; directs reinstatement with regular pay and counting of service for pension benefits.
In a significant judgment delivered on 17 September 2026, the Tripura High Court (Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit) ruled in favor of Smt. Jayanti Bhattacharjee, who was engaged as a contractual Lecturer at Tripura University for over seven years before being arbitrarily redesignated as Assistant Placement Officer and later treated as a daily wager with a drastic wage cut.
The appellant was initially appointed as a Lecturer in the BBA programme in 2009 pursuant to a public advertisement and selection interview conducted by the University. Despite her continuous service for approximately 15 years, the University argued that her appointment was not against any sanctioned post and challenged her entitlement to regularisation. The University further justified her redesignation on grounds of lack of qualifications under subsequent UGC norms and alleged discontinuance of the BBA programme, which the Court found untenable.
The Court meticulously examined the facts and applicable law, holding that:
1. The University had run the BBA programme since 2003-04 using contractual lecturers but failed to create sanctioned regular posts. This failure could not be used to deny substantive character to the appellant's post, given the recurring and essential nature of her duties.
2. The appellant possessed the required qualifications as prescribed in the 2008 advertisement for the Lecturer post. The University's reliance on later UGC regulations and AICTE norms for disqualification was impermissible and arbitrary.
3. The initial appointment was made through a regular recruitment process involving public advertisement and selection interview, and could not be dismissed as a "backdoor" or illegal appointment.
4. The unilateral redesignation from Lecturer (teaching post) to Assistant Placement Officer (non-teaching post) without assigning valid reasons was arbitrary and illegal.
5. The drastic reduction of remuneration to Rs. 1200 per working day with no prior notice or hearing violated the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution.
6. The appellant was entitled to regularisation of her services as Assistant Placement Officer with reinstatement, payment of regular pay and allowances, and counting of her entire service from 2009 for pension and retirement benefits.
The Court directed the University to reinstate Smt. Bhattacharjee forthwith, regularise her services within one month, and pay costs of Rs. 25,000. The judgment underscores the principle that public institutions like universities must act as model employers, respecting the dignity and rights of their employees, particularly those engaged in recurring and essential functions for extended periods.
This decision aligns with recent Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that long-term contractual employment in recurring roles must be regularised and that procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights accrued through continuous service.
Bottom Line:
University cannot exploit an employee by continuing her for about 15 years on contractual/daily wage basis against recurring and essential work, arbitrarily redesignating her post and reducing her wages without notice; such employee, appointed through advertisement and selection process, is entitled to regularisation.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Right to Equality), UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications (2000, 2018), AICTE Guidelines (2005), Service Law principles related to regularisation and contractual employment, principles of natural justice.
Smt. Jayanti Bhattacharjee v. Tripura University, (Tripura)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2983505
