Even Illegal Appointments Cannot Be Cancelled Without Hearing: Patna High Court Quashes Mass Termination Of Absorbed University Staff

"The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary" — High Court of Judicature at Patna, in a detailed and emphatic ruling delivered by Justice Alok Kumar Sinha, set aside the mass cancellation of absorption/regularization of university employees by Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University (TMBU), holding the action void for violation of natural justice and lack of reasoned decision-making. The judgment came in CWJC No. 1543 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar & Others v. The Chancellor Of Universities of Bihar & Others) along with connected writ petitions, which collectively challenged the impugned Office Order No. 508/2017 dated 12.12.2017, that had abruptly withdrawn earlier orders of absorption of several long-serving university employees.

The case raises fundamental questions of procedural fairness, administrative accountability, and the sanctity of principles of natural justice, particularly where employees are sought to be divested of their livelihood on the basis of unilateral findings of an enquiry committee — without notice, without hearing, and without reasons.

"Audi Alteram Partem is Not a Useless Formality" — Court Rejects ‘Void Ab Initio’ Argument of University

At the core of the judgment lies the court’s categorical rejection of the university’s claim that since the appointments were “illegal ab initio”, no notice or hearing was required before cancellation. The court observed:

“Even assuming that the petitioners’ absorptions are open to challenge on the ground of non-compliance of Section 35 of the Act or other statutory provisions, the alleged illegality is neither self-evident nor admitted by the petitioners. In such circumstances, to dispense with notice and hearing... would be to reduce the principles of natural justice to a dead letter.” [Para 35]

Reinforcing this, the Court cited Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal (2024), K. Prabhakar Hegde v. Bank of Baroda (2025), and the classic decision of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980) to reiterate that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed even in cases where illegality is alleged.

It further observed:

“The petitioners were never put on notice; the enquiry report was not furnished to them; the letters from the Governor’s Secretariat... were not supplied; and there was no opportunity, either oral or written, to meet the allegations.” [Para 34]

The Court emphasized that exceptions to natural justice are rare and cannot be created merely by branding an appointment as illegal. It reiterated that only in cases of admitted or indisputable facts leading to one inevitable conclusion and penalty, can principles of natural justice be dispensed with — which was not the case here.

Non-speaking Orders Are Void: “Reasons Are the Heartbeat of Every Order”

Equally significant was the Court’s finding that the impugned order was non-speaking and unreasoned, thereby rendering it void. The Court highlighted that the cancellation order:

“does not record any individual finding... does not discuss their length of service, sanctioned posts, or assign any reasons as to why cancellation, as opposed to any lesser corrective measure, was warranted.” [Para 38]

Citing Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) and reaffirmed in Basudev Dutta, the Court recalled:

“Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions... A pretence of reasons or ‘rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.” [Para 39]

The Court declared that when civil consequences like loss of livelihood are at stake, the duty to provide reasons is not a procedural luxury, but a constitutional necessity flowing from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Absorbed Employees Terminated Without Notice

The petitioners, including Junior Engineers, Assistants, and other staff, were initially engaged on contractual or temporary basis by the University through various processes, including public advertisement. Over the years, they were absorbed into regular service between 2013 and 2014 by the then In-charge Vice-Chancellor.

Their appointments were suddenly cancelled through Office Order No. 508/2017, based entirely on an Enquiry Report constituted by the Chancellor to examine the actions of the said Vice-Chancellor. The petitioners were not parties to the enquiry, were not heard, and never supplied the report or any materials forming the basis of the cancellation. The impugned order made no mention of individual cases, simply referencing the enquiry and letters from the Governor’s Secretariat.

University’s Defence Rejected: “Labeling Appointments Illegal Does Not Override Fundamental Rights”

The University argued that all appointments were illegal for violating Section 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, which mandates prior government approval. It invoked Umadevi (2006) and other precedents to claim that void appointments confer no enforceable rights.

However, the Court drew a critical distinction: While the legality of the appointments was left open, the procedural safeguards before cancellation cannot be denied, even if irregularities are suspected. As the Court noted:

“This Court has not expressed any opinion on the substantive legality or illegality of the petitioners’ absorptions on merits. All such questions are left open to be decided by the competent authority.” [Para 45]

The Court allowed the University liberty to proceed afresh — but only after following due process, including issuance of notice, supplying relevant materials, and affording opportunity of hearing.

Holding the impugned order violative of Articles 14 and 21, the Court:

• Quashed Office Order No. 508/2017 dated 12.12.2017;

• Directed reinstatement of all petitioners to their original posts;

• Ordered full back wages and consequential benefits to be paid within three months;

• Left open the question of legality of absorptions to be decided afresh by the competent authority;

• Declined to examine factual issues relating to appointment processes in view of the procedural failure.

The Court thus upheld a vital proposition of service jurisprudence — “natural justice is not a privilege conferred by the employer, but a constitutional guarantee that cannot be waived by administrative convenience.”

Date of Decision: 09 December 2025