Termination of Deputy Registrar Arbitrary and Malicious: Patna High Court Reinstates Officer with Full Benefits

Appointment Made After Due Process Cannot Be Revoked on Baseless Complaints Years Later - In a significant judgment delivered on March 5, 2025, the Patna High Court quashed the termination of Kumari Anjana from the post of Deputy Registrar at Aryabhatta Knowledge University (AKU), Patna, holding that the cancellation of her appointment was arbitrary, malicious, and based on misrepresentation by University officials. The Court ruled that "an appointment made through a proper selection process, confirmed after years of service, cannot be revoked on frivolous complaints raised nearly a decade later."

Directing her immediate reinstatement with all consequential benefits, the Court observed that "once a selection committee and executive council have lawfully appointed and confirmed a candidate, belated complaints and misrepresented reports cannot be used as a pretext for termination."

"Selection Was Lawful, Termination Based on False Premises" – Court Finds Misrepresentation by University Officials

The dispute arose from Kumari Anjana’s appointment as Deputy Registrar in 2013, after she had served as a Child Development Project Officer (CDPO). Following a valid selection process, she secured the highest merit and was appointed after due approval by the University’s Executive Council. Her service was confirmed in 2017. However, based on complaints received years later, the Chancellor of Universities, Bihar, passed an order on September 26, 2023, declaring that she lacked the requisite experience, leading to the University cancelling her appointment on January 6, 2024.

Rejecting the University’s claim that she did not possess the required experience, the Court found that "the post of CDPO carries a higher pay scale and greater administrative responsibilities than an Assistant Registrar. If a candidate has served in a higher post with greater responsibilities, it logically follows that such experience qualifies for a post requiring lesser experience."

The Court ruled that "once an appointment is made through a duly constituted selection committee and confirmed over time, it cannot be overturned years later on a flimsy pretext. A selection process that was fair and transparent at the time cannot be reopened arbitrarily due to external pressure."

"Termination Order Ante-Dated to Mislead the Court" – High Court Finds Malicious Intent

Serious irregularities were found in the handling of the case by the Chancellor’s office and the University authorities. The Court observed that the termination order was deliberately ante-dated to evade scrutiny. The order, purportedly passed on September 26, 2023, was only communicated on January 6, 2024, long after the petitioner had already submitted her written representations.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318, the Court ruled that "judicial orders must be pronounced within a reasonable time, and unexplained delays or ante-dating render such orders invalid." The judgment stated that "the deliberate delay in communication and the false dating of the order demonstrate a clear intent to mislead the petitioner and the court, vitiating the entire decision-making process."

"Officials Who Misled the Chancellor Must Face Consequences" – High Court Recommends Action Against Responsible Officers

The Court did not stop at quashing the termination but recommended action against officials responsible for misleading the Chancellor. It directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of Patna High Court for necessary action against Officer on Special Duty (Judicial), Shri Balendra Shukla, and before the Principal Secretary to the Governor for necessary action against Officer on Special Duty (University), Shri Mahavir Prasad Sharma.

Emphasizing that "officers entrusted with statutory duties must act with integrity, and misrepresentation leading to an unjust termination warrants disciplinary action," the Court underscored that "justice cannot be compromised due to administrative bias or external influence."

"Judiciary Cannot Allow Administrative Arbitrariness" – High Court Restores Service with Full Benefits

The Court ruled that "the order dated September 26, 2023, passed by the Chancellor, and the consequential termination order dated January 6, 2024, are null and void. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits forthwith."

The ruling reinforces that "a fair selection process cannot be overturned due to politically or administratively motivated complaints years after an appointment has been confirmed." The Court made it clear that "procedural fairness must be upheld, and no officer should suffer due to misrepresentation and abuse of power by administrative authorities."

The Patna High Court’s decision is a landmark reaffirmation that an employee’s service cannot be arbitrarily terminated on baseless complaints years after appointment. The judgment upholds the sanctity of legally conducted selection processes, condemns administrative misrepresentation, and ensures that officers are not made scapegoats due to political or bureaucratic manipulation.

By directing the immediate reinstatement of Kumari Anjana and recommending action against officials who misled the Chancellor, the Court has sent a strong message that abuse of administrative power will not be tolerated.

Date of decision: 05/03/2025