http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: DR. SURESH CHANDRA VERMA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHANCELLOR, NAGPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/08/1990

BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR 2023            1990 SCR  (3) 883  1990 SCC  (4)  55        JT 1990 (3)   552  1990 SCALE  (2)338

ACT:     Service   Law: Nagpur  University  Act,  1974:  Sections 32, 57(4)(a), 57(5), 67 and 76.     University  Teaching staff--Employment  notice  inviting applications-Reservation  category-wise  not  post-wise/sub- ject-wise--Validity     of--Court’s    interpretation     of Rule--Declaration  of  that  interpretation  as  bad--Effect of--From the beginning--Validity of termination orders.     Administrative   Law:   Natural   justice-Audi   alterem partem-Sevices  terminated  due  to change  in  law--Not  on merits  and/or misdemeanow--Whether hearing before  termina- tion necessary.    Practice         and         Procedure:          Judicial decision--Overruling--Consequences   of--Whether    operates retrospectively--Value of precedent. Words & Phrases: "Post"--Meaning of.

HEADNOTE:     The  respondent University issued an  employment  notice inviting  applications for the posts of Professors,  Readers and  Lecturers in different subjects. The  notice  mentioned the  number of reservations category-wise, but not  subject- wise.  Including  the petitioners, a  number  of  candidates belonging  to  both  reserved  and  non-reserved  categories applied. Selection Committees were constituted which  recom- mended  47 candidates for 53 posts; weightage was  given  to candidates  belonging to the reserved  category.  Thereafter the Executive Council constituted a sub-Committee to  decide which  posts should be reserved. On its recommendations  and on consideration of the backlog of reservations, the  Execu- tive  Council decided to set apart 17 posts and gave  perma- nent  appointments  only to 30 candidates. It  also  decided that in respect of the 17 posts reserved, temporary appoint- ments  would  be made pending the availability  of  suitable candidates from the reserved category.     On receipt of some representations expressing grievances against the employment notice as also the procedure followed in making the appointments, the Chancellor appointed a  one- man Committee to in- 884 quire  into the matter. The Committee submitted  its  report

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

which was accepted by the Chancellor.     Meanwhile,  a batch of writ petitions was filed  in  the High  Court challenging the employment notice on the  ground that the non-obtaining of the recommendation from the  Board of  University  Teaching  and Research  before  issuing  the employment  notice was bad in law in view of the  provisions of Section 32(2)(iii) of the Act. The High Court quashed the employment notice and set aside the appointments made to the posts.  It  also restrained the University from  making  any appointment without obtaining the recommendations as  afore- said.     Taking  into  consideration the report  of  the  one-man committee and the decision of the High Court, the Chancellor directed  the Vice Chancellor to terminate the  services  of all  the appointees including the  appellants.  Accordingly, the  Vice-Chancellor  issued orders of  termination  of  the services  of the appellants and other  similarly  appointed. Although  the  services  were  thus  terminated,  the  Vice- Chancellor on the same day issued another order in  exercise of  his emergency powers under Section 11(4) of the Act  and appointed  all the appellants and others to the  same  posts protecting  their pay and allowances and making it clear  to the appointments were temporary.     However  the matter went before a Full Bench  since  one Division Bench took the view that post-wise reservation  was not necessary, and another Division Bench differed from  it. The Full Bench held that general reservations were in breach of the provisions of the Act and against reservation  policy and hence illegal. It also held that since the  appointments were  not  in accordance with law from  the  beginning,  the termination of the appellants’ services was legal.     Aggrieved,  the  appellants have preferred  the  present appeal against the decision of the Full Bench. Dismissing the appeal, this Court,     HELD:  1. The employment notice dated July 27, 1984  was bad in law since it had failed to notify the reservations of the  posts  subject-wise and had mentioned  only  the  total number  of reserved posts without indicating the  particular posts so reserved subject-wise. [893G]     2.  The  word "post" used in S. 57(4)(a) of  the  Nagpur University  Act, 1974 has a relation to the faculty,  disci- pline, or the subject for 885 which  it is created. When therefore, reservations  are  re- quired  to be made "in posts", the reservations have  to  be postwise,  i.e., subjectwise. The mere announcement  of  the number of reserved posts is no better than inviting applica- tions  for posts without mentioning the subjects  for  which the posts are advertised. When, therefore, Section  57(4)(a) requires  that  the advertisement or the  employment  notice would  indicate  the number of reserved posts,  if  any,  it implies  that the employment notice cannot be vague and  has to indicate the specific post, i.e. the subject in which the post  is vacant and for which the applications  are  invited from  the  candidates belonging to the reserved  classes.  A nonindication of the post in this manner itself defeats  the purpose  for  which the applications are  invited  from  the reserved  category candidates and consequently  negates  the object  of  the reservation policy. That this  is  also  the intention  of  the  legislature is  made  clear  by  Section 57(4)(d) which requires the selection committee to interview and  adjudge the merits of each candidate and recommend  him or  her  for  appointment to "the general  posts"  and  "the reserved posts", if any, advertised. [891H; 892A-C]     3.1  It is common knowledge that the vacancies in  posts

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

in  different subjects occur from time to time according  to the exigencies of the circumstances and they arise unequally in  different  posts. There may not be vacancies in  one  or some posts whereas there may be a large number of  vacancies in other posts. In such circumstances, it is not possible to comply  with the minimum reservation percentage of 34  visa- vis  each  post. It is for this reason that  the  Government Resolution  dated 30.3.81 states that although minimum  per- centage of reserved posts may not be i"filed in one or  some posts,  it will be enough if in that year it is  filled  in, taking into consideration that total number of  appointments in  all the posts. This, however, does not absolve  the  ap- pointing authority from advertising in advance the vacancies in each post and the number of posts in such vacancies meant for  the reserved category, and inviting  applications  from candidates belonging to the reserved and unreserved  catego- ries  with  a clear statement in that behalf. In  fact,  the overall minimum percentage has to be kept in mind, as stated in  the  Resolution, at the time of issuing  the  employment notice  or  the  advertisement as the case  may  be.  [892H; 893A-C]     3.2 However, the course to be adopted would depend  upon the unit of reservations, the period over which the  backlog is to be carried, the number of appointments already made in the relevant posts, the availability of candidates from  the reserved category etc. [893F]     Dr.  Raj Kumar v. Gulbarga University, I.L.R.  1990  KAR 2125, referred to. 886     4.  In the instant case, there is nothing on  record  to show  that the method of giving weightage to the  candidates was not followed in respect of reserved category  candidates even  if they had not applied for the post in  the  reserved seats.  There is also nothing on record to show whether  any candidate belonging to the reserved category had applied for a  particular  post in a reserved seat,  without  the  prior knowledge  that  the post was reserved.  It  is,  therefore, difficult  to understand as to how the selection  committees proceeded to give weightage to the candidates without  know- ing  whether  they had applied for reserved  or  nonreserved seats. What is more objectionable in the procedure was  that its  Executive  Council proceeded to classify the  posts  in different  subjects between reserved and non-reserved  posts after  the lists of selected candidates were  received  from different  selection committee. This method was open  to  an obvious objection since it gave a scope to eliminate unwant- ed selected candidates at that stage. [891A-D]     5.  When the court decides that the interpretation of  a particular  provision as given earlier was not legal  it  in effect declares that the law as it stood from the  beginning was  as  per  its decision, and that it was  never  the  law otherwise. This being the case, since the Full Bench and now this Court has taken the view that the interpretation placed on  the provisions of law by the Division Bench in  Bhakre’s case  was  erroneous, it will have to be held that  the  ap- pointments made by the University on March 30, 1985 pursuant to  that  decision  were not according to  law.  Hence,  the termination of the services of the appellants was in compli- ance  with  the  provisions of section  57(5)  of  the  Act. [894B-D]     6. Since the services of the appellants are to be termi- nated  in view of the change in the position of law and  not on  account  of the demerits or misdemeanour  of  individual candidates,  it  is not necessary to  hear  the  individuals before  their  services  are terminated. The  rule  of  audi

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

alterem  partem does not apply in such cass, and  therefore, there  is  no breach of the principles of  natural  justice. [894D-E]     7.  It seems, some of the appellants had  resigned  from their  earlier jobs and joined the University. Some of  them have become overaged for making any fresh application, while others  will have no chance either because the posts as  per the new advertisements of 1987 are reserved or  non-reserved and they belong to the other category. It is recommended  on compassionate  grounds  that the University  may  take  into consideration  the relevant facts pertaining to each of  the appellants, and if it is possible, accommodate them  without transgressing the law and the claim of other eligible candi- dates. [894F-G] 887

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1451  of 1988.     From the Judgment and Order dated 14.3.88 of the  Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 1033 of 1987.     M.S. Nesargi, R.C. Mishra and Dr. Meera Agarwal for  the Appellants.     Vinod  Bobde,  Ms. J. Wad and A.M.  Khanwilkar  for  the Respondents. V.N. Ganpule for the State. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. The two questions raised in this appeal are: (i)  Whether the employment notice issued by the  respondent University on July 27, 1984 ought to have indicated reserva- tions postwise, and (ii) Whether, assuming that the said notice was invalid  the termination of services of the appellants on April 21,  1987 was valid?     2. The University issued the employment notice in  ques- tion  inviting  applications for a total of 77  posts  which included 13 posts of Professors, 29 posts of Readers and  35 posts  of Lecturers in different subjects ranging from  Eco- nomics,  Politics  and Sociology to  Physics,  Pharmacy  and Geology.  The notice mentioned total number of  reservations categorywise but not subjectwise as follows: Professors   -  Scheduled Castes-3, Scheduled  Tribes-2  and VJ/NT- 1 Readers   -  Scheduled  Castes-6,  Scheduled  Tribes-4   and VJ/NT-2 Lecturers  -  Scheduled  Castes-7,  Scheduled  Tribes-5  and VJ/’NT-4     A  number  of applications were received for  the  posts from candidates including the petitioners belonging to  both reserved and nonreserved castes for all the three categories of  posts,  viz., Professors, Readers  and  Lecturers.  This advertisement  was corrected by Corrigendum of  February  1, 1985. Thereafter, a further employment notice 888 for additional posts in all the three categories was  issued on  August 1, 1985 but we are not concerned with  the  same. Different  selection  committees in all 53  in  number  were constituted and they recommended 47 candidates for 53 posts. It  appears  that  while recommending  the  selections,  the committees  also gave weightage to the candidates  belonging to  the reserved castes. Thereafter, the  Executive  Council constituted a sub-committee to decide which posts should  be reserved  for the reserved castes. On the recommendation  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

the  sub-committee and after taking into  consideration  the backlog  of reservations, the Executive Council  decided  to keep apart 17 posts and made permanent appointments only  to 30 out of 47 candidates by its appointment orders issued  on March 30, 1985 for the academic year 1985-86. As regards  17 posts  which  were kept apart for  reserved  candidates,  it decided  to fill in the same by temporary  appointments  for those posts pending the availability of the suitable  candi- dates from reserved castes.     3.  It  appears  that against  these  appointments  some social workers and organisations made representations to the Chancellor  making a grievance both against  the  employment notice as well as the procedure followed in making the  said appointments.  By  his order dated February  22,  1986,  the Chancellor appointed a one-man committee under Section 76 of the Nagpur University Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to  as the ’Act’) to inquire into the matter. The committee submit- ted  its report on September 24, 1986 which was accepted  by the Chancellor.     4. In the meanwhile, a batch of writ petitions was filed in  the High Court challenging the employment notice on  the ground that the non-obtaining of the recommendation from the Board of University Teaching and Research (’BUTR’ for short) before issuing the employment notice was bad in law in  view of  the  provisions of Section 32(2) (iii) of the  Act.  The High Court accepting this contention quashed the  employment notice  and  set aside the appointments to the  posts  which were challenged in those petitions. In all the petitions the Court  also  restrained the University from making  any  ap- pointment  without  obtaining the recommendations  from  the BUTR.     Taking into consideration both the report of the one-man committee  and  also  the decision of the  High  Court,  the Chancellor  directed  the Vice-Chancellor to  terminate  the service  of all the appointees including the appellants  and accordingly the Vice-Chancellor issued orders of termination of services of the appellants and others similarly appointed on  April  21, 1987. The termination orders  mentioned  four grounds as follows: 889 (a)  the  reservation policy adopted by the  University  was contrary to Section 57 of the Act; (b)  the  decision of the Executive Council  allocating  all reserved  posts to VIth Plan posts were arbitrary  and  dis- criminatory; (c)  the University had failed to comply with the  mandatory provisions  of Section 32 of the Act since it had  not  con- sulted the BUTR; and (d)  that the employment notice was not in  accordance  with law.     It may be mentioned here that although the services were thus terminated by the said order the Vice-Chancellor on the same  day issued another order in exercise of his  emergency powers under Section 11(4) of the Act and appointed all  the appellants and others to the same posts protecting their pay and  allowances  at the same time making it clear  that  the appointments were temporary.     We are concerned in this appeal only with two grounds as stated  at the outset. The third ground, viz.,  whether  the recommendations  of BUTR were mandatory before the  issuance of  the  employment notice was not pressed before  the  Full Bench from which the present appeal arises. It appears  that on  the first ground, viz., whether the general  reservation instead of the postwise reservation was illegal, there was a difference  of opinion between two Division Benches  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

High Court. One Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 1876  of 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Bhakre’s case’ (decid- ed  on  December  7, 1984 took the view  that  the  postwise reservation was not necessary whereas another Division Bench differed  with  the  said view and sent the  papers  to  the learned  Chief Justice for referring the matter to a  larger Bench  and  the issue referred to the larger  Bench  was  as follows: "Is non-reserving the posts of University teachers  subject- wise in the employment notice a breach of letter and  spirit of  reservation  policy contained in Section 77C  read  with Section 57 of the Act?"     That  being  the only issue, the Full Bench  was  really called  upon to answer it alone. However, thereafter by  the the consent of parties one more issue was raised before  the Full Bench which is the second of the two questions which we have to decide in this appeal, viz., whether,  notwithstand- ing the illegality of the general reservation, the  services of the appellants were liable to be terminated. On the first 890 issue, the Full Bench held that general reservations were in breach of the provisions of the Act and against the reserva- tion policy and, therefore, illegal. On the second issue, by majority  the  Full Bench held that since  the  appointments were not according to law from the beginning, ’the  termina- tion of the appellants’ services was legal.     6.  As  regards  the first question,  we  have  narrated earlier  the method which was adopted by the University  for reserving the posts. It announced the posts categorywise  as Professors,  Readers and Lecturers in different subject  and made a blanket declaration that 6 of the posts of Professor, 12 of the posts of Readers and 16 of the posts of  Lecturers would be reserved for backward castes. Neither the Universi- ty  nor the candidates knew at that time as to for which  of the  subjects  and in what number the said  posts  were  re- served. The result was that the candidates belonging to  the reserved category in particular, who wanted to apply for the reserved  posts  did not know for which of  the  posts  they could  apply  and whether they could apply at  a11  for  the posts  in  the subjects in which they were  qualified.  That this could be the expected consequence of such an employment notice  can  legitimately be inferred and need  not  be  and indeed cannot be, demonstrated by evidence of what  actually happened,  for  there  may be number of  candidates  who  on account  of the said uncertainty might have  refrained  from applying for the posts as against those who applied to  take a  chance. What is further, the selection  committees  which were  appointed to interview the candidates for the  respec- tive posts did not also know whether they were  interviewing the  candidates  for reserved posts or not,  and  to  assess merits of the candidates from the reserved category as  such candidates. The contention advanced on behalf of the  appel- lants that the selection committees even without know wheth- er  the  posts  concerned were reserved or  not,  had  given weightage to the candidates from the reserved category  and, therefore, it cannot be said that any injustice had resulted to them is without merit. In the first instance, the conten- tion proceeds on the footing that all those belonging to the reserved category who wanted to apply for a11 the said posts had  done so even without knowing that the  concerned  posts were reserved. Secondly, it also presumes that all  eligible candidates  from  unreserved category had  applied  for  the posts  without  knowing whether the posts were  reserved  or not. The possibility that many eligible candidates belonging to  both reserved and unreserved categories might  not  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

taken  the  risk and chosen to gamble cannot be  ruled  out. This argument further ignores the fact that the  suitability of  a candidate from a reserved category to  the  particular post has to be adjudged by taking into consideration various factors and the desired 891 result cannot be obtained by merely giving uniform weightage marks to the candidates concerned which was the only  method followed  by  the selection committees while  selecting  the candidates. Further, there is nothing on record to show that this  method  of giving weightage to the candidate  was  not followed in respect of reserved category candidates even  if they  had  not applied for the post in  the.reserved  seats. What is more, there is also nothing on record to show wheth- er  any  candidates belonging to the reserved  category  has applied  for a particular post in a reserved  seat,  without the  prior  knowledge  that the post was  reserved.  It  is, therefore,  difficult to understand as to how the  selection committees  proceeded  to give weightage to  the  candidates without  knowing  whether they had applied for  reserved  or nonreserved seats. What is more objectionable in the  proce- dure  was that its Executive Council proceeded  to  classify the  posts in different subjects between reserved  and  non- reserved  posts after the lists of selected candidates  were received  from different selection committees.  This  method was  open to an obvious objection since it gave a  scope  to eliminate  unwanted  selected  candidates  at’  that  stage. Whether it occurred in the present case or not is immaterial for  testing  the validity and the propriety of  the  method followed  by the University. As has been stated earlier,  in fact,  after the receipt of the list of selected  candidates not  only  the  Executive Council  constituted  yet  another committee to decide which of the subjectwise posts should be reserved or not but the Executive Council also decided  that although  candidates for 47 posts were selected only  30  of them  should be appointed permanently. The  latter  included some backward class candidates for reserved posts so catego- rised later. But 17 of the posts were set apart although the candidates  were  selected for them, and they  were  so  set apart for being filled in afresh by candidates belonging  to the  reserved category. Interestingly, however, the  employ- ment notice issued subsequently for these 17 posts mentioned reservations postwise (subjectwise).     7. The argument based on Section 57(4)(a) of the Act  to support the procedure adopted by the University is,  accord- ing  to us, not well merited. The contention is  that  since Section  57(4)(a)  requires the University to state  in  the advertisement only the total number of posts and the  number of  reserved posts and not postwise, i.e., subjectwise,  the employment notice in question was not bad in law.  According to us, the word "post" used in the context has a relation to the  faculty,  discipline, or the subject for  which  it  is created.  When, therefore, reservations are required  to  be made "in posts", the reservations have to be postwise, i.e., subjectwise. The mere announcement of the number of 892 reserved  posts is no better than inviting applications  for posts  without mentioning the subjects for which  the  posts are  advertised. When, therefore, Section 57(4)(a)  requires that the advertisement or the employment notice would  indi- cate  the number of reserved posts, if any, it implies  that the  employment notice cannot be vague and has  to  indicate the  specific post, i.e., the subject in which the  post  is vacant  and for which the applications are invited from  the candidates belonging to the reserved classes. A  non-indica-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

tion  of the post in this manner itself defeats the  purpose for  which  the applications are invited from  the  reserved category  candidates and consequently negates the object  of the  reservation policy. That this is also the intention  of the  legislature  is made clear by  Section  57(4)(d)  which requires  the selection committees to interview and  adjudge the  merits of each candidate and recommend him or  her  for appointment to "the general posts" and "the reserved posts", if any, advertised.     8. A support was also sought to be derived by the appel- lants to their contention from the policy of reservation  as enunciated  in  Government Resolution dated March  30,  1981 wherein  instructions were issued in the matter in  exercise of the power conferred on the Government under Section 77(c) of  the Act. The contention was that since in para  3(b)  of the  said  Resolution it is stated that "similarly,  at  any given  time of recruitment to the teaching posts,  only  the total  number  of reserved vacancies and the  sections  from which  they  are to be filled in should  be  determined.  It would be enough if the required percentage is fulfilled as a whole and not with reference to any particular post. If  the reserved  vacancies cannot be filled, then so many posts  as cannot  be filled in, may be kept vacant for six months  and should  be again advertised thrice. If, even after  readver- tising the posts three times, suitable candidates  belonging to  the reserved category do not become available, they  may be filled in by candidates belonging to the "open category". We are afraid that this interpretation placed on the  afore- said contents of the Government Resolution stems from  their misreading.  Read in the context in which the said  contents appear,  it is clear that what is sought to be  conveyed  by them is that although at any given time the total percentage of reservation, viz. 34 is not made up vis-a-vis  particular post  or  posts, it would be an enough compliance  with  the Resolution  if the total number of vacancies filled  in  all the  posts  together conform to the said percentage.  It  is common  knowledge that the vacancies in posts  in  different subjects occur from time to time according to the exigencies of  the circumstances and they arise unequally in  different posts.  There  may  not be vacancies in one  or  some  posts whereas there may be a large number of vacancies in other 893 posts.  In such circumstances, it is not possible to  comply with the minimum reservation percentage of 34 vis-a-vis each post. It is for this reason that the Resolution states  that although  minimum  percentage of reserved posts may  not  be filled  in one or some posts, it will be enough if  in  that year  it  is filled in taking into consideration  the  total number of appointments in all the posts. This, however, does not  absolve  the appointing authority from  advertising  in advance  the vacancies in each post and the number of  posts in  such  vacancies  meant for the  reserved  category,  and inviting  applications from the candidates belonging to  the reserved and unreserved categories with a clear statement in that behalf. In fact, the overall minimum percentage has  to be kept in mind, as stated in the Resolution, at the time of issuing  the employment notice or the advertisement  as  the case may be.     On behalf of the appellants reliance was also sought  to be  placed  on a Full Bench decision of the  Karnataka  High Court in Dr. Raj Kumar v. Gulbarga University, AIR 1990  KAR 2 125. We do not see how the decision in question helps  the appellants,  for  the  Full Bench has  observed  there  that general reservation has to be cadrewise and subjectwise. But an exception could possibly be made in cases like the one of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

professors  in which post available in each of the  subjects is only one while grouping all of them together for purposes of reservation so that at least in the subjects in which the candidates belonging to the reserved category are available, they  could be accommodated. It is not necessary for  us  in this case to express our opinion on the correct course to be adopted  when  only one post is available  in  a  particular subject  at  a given time. The course to  be  adopted  would depend upon the unit of reservations, the period over  which the  backlog  is to be carried, the number  of  appointments already  made in the said posts, the availability of  candi- dates from the reserved category etc. What is material  from our point of view in this case is to point out that even the Karnataka  Full  Bench  has taken the  view  that  generally reservation had to be cadrewise and subjectwise. It was also a case of the filling in of the vacancies in teaching  posts in a University.     We  are, therefore, in complete agreement with the  view taken  by  the Full Bench that the employment  notice  dated July  27, 1984 was bad in law since it had failed to  notify the reservations of the posts subjectwise and had  mentioned only  the total number of reserved posts without  indicating the particular posts so reserved subjectwise.     9. The second contention need not detain us long. It  is based  primarily on the provisions of Section 57(5)  of  the Act. The contention 894 is  that since the provisions of that section give power  to the  Chancellor to terminate the services of a teacher  only if he is satisfied that the appointment "was not in  accord- ance  with the law at that time in force" and since the  law at  that  time in force, viz., on March 30,  1985  when  the appellants  were  appointed,  was the law as  laid  down  in Bhakre’s case (supra) which was decided on December 7, 1984, the termination of the appellants is beyond the power of the Chancellor. The argument can only be described as naive.  It is unnecessary to point out that when the court decides that the interpretation of a particular provision as given earli- er  was not legal, it in effect declares that the law as  it stood  from the beginning was as per its decision, and  that it  was never the law otherwise. This being the case,  since the  Full Bench and now this Court has taken the  view  that the  interpretation placed on the provisions of law  by  the Division  Bench in Bhakre’s case (supra) was  erroneous,  it will  have  to  be held that the appointments  made  by  the University  on March 30, 1985 pursuant to the law laid  down in  Bhakre’s case (supra) were not according to law.  Hence, the  termination of the services of the appellants  were  in compliance with the provisions of Section 57(5) of the Act.     When,  therefore, the services of the appellants are  to be  terminated in view of the change in the position of  law and not on account of the demerits or misdemeanour of  indi- vidual candidates, it is not necessary to hear the individu- als  before their services are terminated. The rule of  audi altrem  partem does not apply in such cases and,  therefore, there is no breach of the principles of natural justice.  In the  result.  we are of the view that there is no  merit  in this  case. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. In  the circumstances  of the case, however, there will be no  order as to costs.     10.  However, it is pointed out to us that some  of  the appellants  had resigned from their earlier jobs and  joined the University, some of them have become overaged for making any  fresh  application  while others will  have  no  chance either  because  the posts as per the new  advertisement  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

1987 are either reserved or non-reserved and they belong  to the  other category. We can, therefore, only recommend  that the  University  may take into  consideration  the  relevant facts  pertaining  to each of the appellants, and if  it  is possible, accommodate them without transgressing the law and the  claims of other eligible candidates. We make  it  clear that  this  recommendation is not a direction  and  is  made purely  on compassionate grounds. It is to be followed  only if it is possible for the University to do so without giving rise  to  further litigation by candidates who  may  be  ag- grieved on that account. G.N.                                   Appeal dismissed. 895