Case Law and Judgements relating to Higher Education

18/05/2026

I filed an RTI application with the Sri Guru Hargobind Ujjagar Hari Trust, Sidhwan Khurd seeking information regarding its Balance Sheets, Income Tax Returns, and details of funding and properties.

The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Trust provided most of the information but denied to supply the Balance Sheets and ITRs. Consequently, I filed a Second Appeal before the Punjab State Information Commission in 2023.

I raised several important legal issues in my appeal. Due to the significant legal questions involved, the Single Bench referred the matter to a Double Bench to decide whether the information should be made public.

During the proceedings before the Double Bench, the said Trust took a U-turn and claimed that it is a private trust and not a public authority. I strongly contested this position and submitted that the information sought is a matter of larger public interest. Apart from private educational institutions the said Trust runs two aided colleges and one aided school. These colleges are charging higher fees from students but are not paying teachers as per the UGC’s revised 7th Pay Scales. Additionally, they are collecting retiral benefits funds from students but are not deducting and depositing the CPF as per Panjab University norms. I also raised several other legal and technical points before the Bench.

After hearing the matter, the Double Bench has reserved its order and issued the following directions to the Trust:

1. Submit an affidavit stating that no financial transactions have taken place between the Trust and the two aided colleges — Khalsa College for Women, Sidhwan Khurd, and GHG Harparkash College of Education for Women.
2. Submit an undertaking clarifying whether the Trust is managing the affairs of these aided colleges.
3. Submit details on whether the members of the Trust and the members of the Governing Bodies of the aided colleges are the same.
4. A copy of the order has also been sent to the Director, Higher Education, Punjab, directing them to provide year-wise details of grants sanctioned to both aided colleges and to the Trust.

I personally feel this is a very positive and significant order. Such directions are likely to ensure greater accountability and compel the managements to strictly follow the law, thereby protecting the legitimate rights of teachers and staff.

(Varun)

01/05/2026

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajan Goyal v. UGC & Ors. (CWP 21780-2022) dealt with two connected issues: whether the petitioner’s teaching experience could be counted for selection, and whether he was entitled to salary parity as a contractual Assistant Professor. The petitioner had been working with Punjabi University since 03.08.2011 and challenged Clause 10.0(f)(iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which limited counting of ad hoc/contractual teaching experience only when the teacher was working against a regular post.

On the experience issue, the Division Bench had already held that the petitioner’s challenge to the regulation had become academic because the advertised post was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category, and the selected candidate had later been appointed. Since the petitioner was from the general category, he could not claim the reserved post, so the prayer to count his experience for that recruitment was rejected as otiose.

The surviving issue was salary. The petitioner argued that his long teaching service should not be ignored merely because he was paid less, and that experience depends on actual work done, not the amount of salary received. The University argued that he was only a contractual employee, had accepted the terms repeatedly, and that his duties were not identical to those of regular Assistant Professors.

The Court held that Clause 13 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and 2018 required fixed emoluments for contractual appointments to be no less than the monthly gross salary of a regular Assistant Professor. It rejected the University’s reliance on consent, internal regulations, lower pay, and delay. The Court also referred to a recent Supreme Court view that depressed honorarium for contractual teachers can amount to unconstitutional forced labour.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed. The University was directed to pay the petitioner fixed emoluments equal to the gross salary of a regular Assistant Professor, along with arrears and 6% interest within two months.

24/01/2026

*What the High Court has clearly held*

This judgment is actually favourable to Panjab University’s institutional authority, especially the Senate. Key takeaways:

final decision exists till date
The Court records that:
The 18.05.2018 communication only kept permanent affiliation in abeyance.

final Senate decision has been taken so far.
Temporary affiliation does NOT create vested rights

petitioner was merely given year-to-year temporary affiliation.
This does not dilute or bypass Senate powers.

is the final statutory authority
The Court expressly directs:
“the Senate of the University be requested to take a final decision … in accordance with law”

factual aspects are left OPEN
This is crucial.
The Senate is not bound by past extensions.

Senate can re-examine all deficiencies, violations, compliance issues, afresh.

30/11/2025

Employee Withdrew Resignation Much Before He Was Relieved: Supreme Court Upholds Grant Of 50% Backwages

The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal noted, “Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that the ‘errors’ as pointed out in the review petition do not have the effect of changing our decision. The fact remains that, though the respondent employee resigned by letter dated 05.12.2013, with effect from 05.01.2014, the final letters of the Konkan Railway dated 23.06.2014, 01.07.2014 and 15.07.2014 conclusively established that the resignation is accepted with effect from 01.07.2014.”

“In any event of the matter, justice and equity lie in favour of the employee, who has rendered 23 years of unblemished service. Seen in this context, we are of the opinion that it will be unjust to interpret few letters exchanged between the parties to hold that the employee has deliberately and consciously resigned, particularly when he has been contesting the case for more than a decade”, it added.

Cause Title: Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. S.D. Manohara (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1368)

REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 2193/2024
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10567 OF 2024

27/11/2025

*Sandesh Tyagi vs Satyam College for Girls, Sayadwala, Abohar*
*Petition No 123/2018*
*Punjab Education Tribunal*

*Summary of the Judgment*

The petition was filed by Sandesh Tyagi, an Assistant Professor in Philosophy at Satyam College for Girls, challenging the termination of his services through a letter dated 07.07.2018, which purported to terminate his employment with effect from 30.06.2018.

*Key Facts and Issues:*
- The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in Philosophy, initially through a letter dated 27.09.2014 and selected through a formal interview process as per UGC and Panjab University regulations.

- The college terminated his services citing the absence of students in the subject of Philosophy.

- The petitioner claimed the termination was illegal because the college failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements.

*Tribunal's Findings and Decision:*
The Tribunal held that the termination was illegal and violated applicable statutory provisions, specifically:

*1. Mandatory Procedural Requirements Not Followed:*
- Punjab University Calendar Rules: Rule 13.2–13.5 of Chapter VIII(A) explicitly requires that a college must apply at least one academic year in advance to obtain prior permission from the university to discontinue any subject. No such prior permission was sought or obtained.

*Statutory Requirements:* Section 7 of the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of Employees) Act, 1974 requires prior approval from the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, for retrenchment due to reduction in workload. Although the termination letter did not use the term "retrenchment," the Tribunal found that the action effectively amounted to retrenchment without the required prior approval.

2. **Legal Violations**:
- The college issued the termination without obtaining the mandatory prior permissions, rendering the action procedurally defective and arbitrary.
- Subsequent attempts to seek permission after termination were belated and ineffective.

*Outcome:*
The Tribunal partly allowed the petition and issued the following directions:

- **Termination Set Aside**: The termination letter dated 07.07.2018 was declared illegal and quashed.
- **Reinstatement Ordered**: The petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service on his post of Assistant Professor (Philosophy) with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
- **Salary Payments**: The college was directed to pay:
- Difference of salary (as per UGC norms),
- Pending salary, and
- 50% of wages during the period of unemployment (calculated based on last drawn salary minus amounts already received).

- **Timeframe**: All payments were to be made within three months of the judgment, failing which the college would be liable to pay 6% interest per annum on the outstanding amounts.

*Conclusion:*
The Tribunal emphasized that colleges affiliated with Punjab University are bound by the procedural safeguards outlined in the Punjab University Calendar and the 1974 Act. The failure to obtain prior permission—one academic year in advance for discontinuing a subject and prior approval from the Director for any retrenchment—made the termination substantively illegal, regardless of the absence of students in the subject. The judgment underscores that such mandatory procedural requirements cannot be bypassed, even in cases of reduced student enrollment in a particular subject.

(Varun)

21/06/2025

Long-Term Daily Wagers With 10+ Years’ Service Entitled To Minimum Pay & Regularisation Despite Lack Of Sanctioned Posts Or Educational Qualification: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Summary
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that daily-wage or contractual employees who have completed 10 years of continuous service are entitled to regularization and minimum pay scale, regardless of sanctioned posts or qualifications. The court dismissed 136 appeals by the State of Punjab, upholding a Single Judge's order granting relief to over 100 employees.

Key Points
1. Long-serving employees (10+ years) are entitled to regularization and minimum pay.
2. Lack of sanctioned posts or qualifications doesn't disqualify them.
3. The court recognized employees' legitimate expectation of regularization after decades of service.

Implications
1. Employees with long service periods have enforceable rights.
2. The state can't deny benefits due to administrative inaction or formal objections.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Versus SARWAN RAM AND OTHERS
LPA-2032-2024
(Varun)

03/06/2025

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that remarks made in employee’s annual confidential reports (ACR) created CIVIL RIGHTS, adverse remarks must be REASONED.

Remarks made in the annual performance appraisal report or annual confidential reports, reflects the working of an individual. It creates civil rights because if the ACRs are tone-down or adverse remarks are entered, the concerned person would be deprived of his promotion as well as benefit of MACP for that period. Thus, before making any such remarks, reasons have to be mentioned".
Title: State of Haryana and others v. Rani Devi

LPA 547 of 2021

01/06/2025

02/05/2025

Supreme Court: Contractual Service Rendered Prior To Regularisation To Be Counted For Payment Of Pensionary Benefits

S.D. Jayaprakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors
SLP (C) Nos. 19539-19540 OF 2021
Date of Decision: 29-04-2025

01/05/2025

In fifteen connected cases (Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology vs Ranjit Singh) and others LPA 1102 OF 2024 & ors, bench of Honorable Justice Sanjeev Parkash Sharma and Honorable Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa has given inclusive defination of Minimum pay scales which also includes dearness allowance. Double bench dismissed the appeals of the colleges, and directed them to disburse arrears and salary to the assistant professors (who are working on contract) along with dearness allowance. The court's ruling permits colleges to pay arrears in six monthly installments if they're experiencing financial constraints, without any capping of 36 months arrears. Thus, colleges have to pay arrears of the entire period of service.

Date of Decision: 22-04-2025