Termination of Contractual Faculty and the Applicability of Natural Justice: Netaji Subhash University of Technology v. M. P. Chaudhary (2026)

Netaji Subhash University Of Technology & Anr. v. M. P. Chaudhary

Parties:

Citation: LPA 603/2023 & CM APPL. 43535/2023

Court: High Court Of Delhi

Judgement Date: 04th February 2026

Coram

• Hon’ble Mr. Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

Brief Facts

The Respondent, Mr. M. P. Chaudhary (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”), was appointed as Visiting Faculty (Mathematics) at Netaji Subhash University of Technology (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant-University”) pursuant to a Selection Committee meeting dated 30.07.2019. Thereafter, an Offer of Appointment was issued on 02.08.2019 for an initial period of one year subject to certain terms. (See Para 5 & 6 of the judgment)

The Respondent objected to the condition given under Clause (e) of the initial Offer of Appointment, which stipulated that in the event of appointment of regular faculty, services of the Respondent may be dispensed with. A fresh Offer of Appointment dated 16.08.2019 was issued due to the removal of the said clause, pursuant to which the Respondent joined the service, and his appointment was later extended w.e.f. 06.08.2020.

However, complaints were received from students alleging improper conduct of classes and incorrect answer sheet evaluation by the Respondent. A committee constituted by the Appellant-University found significant discrepancies during re-evaluation of the answer sheets of 223 students, leading to the upgrade of marks of 194 students.

Based on the committee’s report, the Controller of Examination recommended debarring the Respondent from examination-related activities. The Head of Department of Mathematics (hereinafter referred to as the “HoD (Mathematics)”), through a letter sent to the Dean on 16.12.2020, conveyed that the Respondent’s services were no longer required and that he may be terminated, following which a Termination Notice dated 31.12.2020 was issued with immediate effect but did not state any reasons for the same. (See Para 7-9 of the judgment)

After a nugatory attempt to get a response to the representation submitted by him against the termination, the Respondent instituted proceedings of W.P.(C) 2230/2021 challenging the aforesaid Termination Notice on 31.12.2020.

During the pendency of the petition, a post-decisional hearing was granted, and a speaking order dated 05.03.2021 was passed justifying the termination. The Ld. Single Judge, by a judgment dated 05.07.2023, quashed the Termination Notice and directed issuance of a fresh Show Cause Notice.

This decision was made after taking into consideration Statute 24(4)[1] of the First Statutes of the Appellant-University and principles of natural justice. However, the Appellant-University argued that since the appointment of the Respondent was made on a contractual basis, Statute 24(4) will not be attracted, and only the terms of the Offer of Appointment shall govern the Respondent’s appointment. Hence, the present intra-court (See Para 9-13 of the judgment)

Issue (See Para 17 of the Judgment)

• Whether, for terminating the services of the respondent, the Appellant-University was under obligation to follow the provisions contained in Statute 24(4) of the First Statutes of the Appellant-University.
• Whether the termination of the services of the respondent has precipitated without following the principles of natural justice.

Findings of the High Court

The High Court, in consideration of the scheme of appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in the Appellant-University as given in the Act and the First Statutes, held that although the Respondent’s appointment was not a regular appointment under Statute 15 but was in tune with Statute 16 of the First Statutes, which provides a special mode of appointment for persons of high academic distinction on terms determined by the Board. (See Paras 18-21 of the judgment)

The Respondent was, thus, termed to be an employee under Section 2(k) of the Act and subject to protections under Statute 24(4) of the First Statutes. It was further held that no opportunity envisaged in Statute 24(4) was afforded to the Petitioner, and therefore, the termination was clearly in violation of the said Statute and, hence, is not sustainable. (See Para 22 of the judgment)

Even assuming Statute 24(4) was inapplicable, the Court held that termination founded on allegations of misconduct resulting in civil consequences necessarily requires application of principles of natural justice, including disclosure of reasons and an opportunity of hearing. (See Paras 23 & 24 of the judgment)

Conclusion

The judgment concluded with the Court expressing their agreement with the learned Single Judge’s findings that the termination notice suffered from statutory infirmity and was also in violation of the principles of natural justice. The intra-court appeal was then dismissed along with the statement that the Court did not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Ld. Single Judge. (See Paras 25 & 26 of the judgment)

Statute 24(4) of the First Statutes

End Notes:

• https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/68304022026LPA6032023_151024.pdf