Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, on July 23, 2025, dismissed a writ petition challenging the applicability and constitutionality of Section 4(d) of the Central Universities Act, 2009. The petition sought directions to reinstate a former employee whose services were terminated by Guru Ghasidas University before its conversion into a Central University. The petitioner relied on the subsequent criminal appellate court's remarks that his conviction should not impact his employment.

The Division Bench found no legal infirmity in the Executive Council's decision to reject the petitioner’s request for reinstatement. The Court stated that Section 4(d) of the Central Universities Act, 2009 only protects employees who were in continuous employment on the date the Act came into force and does not extend benefits to those whose services had already been terminated. The Court held that no constitutional violation or arbitrariness was found in the application of the statutory provision and thus declined to grant the reliefs prayed for.

Also Read: Supreme Court : "Fraud Unravels Everything," Recalls Its Own Judgment and Sets Aside High Court Order in NOIDA Land Dispute

The petitioner, a former employee of the erstwhile Guru Ghasidas University, was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on May 13, 1996. On July 3, 2005, a criminal case was registered against him and others for alleged assault, house trespass, and robbery. As a result of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner was suspended on January 2, 2007. Upon conviction by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 111/2006 under Sections 147, 148, 450, 307/149, and 323/149 IPC, the petitioner was dismissed from service on November 23, 2007 under Rule 31 of the University Statutes read with Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.

Subsequently, the university was converted into Guru Ghasidas Central University following the enactment of the Central Universities Act, 2009. The Act came into force on March 20, 2009, and included Section 4(d), which protected the tenure and service conditions of employees serving at the time of transition.

The petitioner’s criminal conviction was later challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2007 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh. On January 4, 2021, the Court allowed compounding of certain offences following a settlement between parties, while the conviction under Section 450 IPC was upheld. However, considering mitigating factors, including lack of criminal antecedents and a settlement, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. The Court recorded: "the government employment of Appellant Subhash Singh and his employment-related future prospects shall not adversely affect."

Relying on this observation, the petitioner submitted representations on January 15, 2021 and June 11, 2021 seeking reinstatement. The Executive Council of Guru Ghasidas Central University considered the request during its meeting on September 2, 2022. Referring to Section 4(d) of the Act, the Council resolved that the termination could not be reconsidered as the petitioner was not in service when the Act commenced. This decision was conveyed to the petitioner through a communication dated September 15, 2022.

The petitioner then filed the writ petition, arguing that the criminal appeal judgment protected his employment rights and that Section 4(d) of the Act, 2009 was unconstitutional as it deprived him of reinstatement. He claimed that this provision violated Article 21 of the Constitution and the principle of "ubi jus ibi remedium". He sought either quashing of Section 4(d) or a direction for reinstatement in line with the service conditions applicable under the earlier university.

In response, the respondent-university contended that the petitioner was not exonerated from the conviction, and that Section 4(d) could not apply as his service had already been terminated in 2007, prior to the Act. They submitted that the Act aimed to protect only those in active service on the date of commencement and could not retroactively revive terminated employments.

The Court observed: "The petitioner was an ex-employee of GGU who was removed from service on 23.11.2007 when a criminal case was pending against him... the petitioner had already been removed way back on 23.11.2007."

Regarding Section 4(d), the Bench stated: "Section 4(d) of the Act, 2009 provides that 'every employee holding any office under the University immediately before the commencement of this Act shall hold his office or service by the same tenure and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment is terminated.'"

The Court further noted: "This clause means that only if the employees were in continuous service in the earlier said University, could they continue with the New Central University. In the present case, since the petitioner had already been removed way back on 23.11.2007, the authorities have rightly informed the petitioner as per Section 4(d) of the Act, 2009."

On the constitutional challenge, the Court recorded: "A statutory provision cannot be declared unconstitutional merely on the ground of hardship... The petitioner has not demonstrated how Section 4(d) violates any constitutional provision, including Articles 14 or 21."

Quoting State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rakesh Kohli, the Court stated: "A law made by Parliament or the legislature can be struck down by courts on two grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence and (2) violation of any of the fundamental rights... No enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable."

Addressing the employment-related observation in the criminal appeal, the Court clarified: "The observation... that the petitioner’s employment shall not be adversely affected cannot be construed as a positive directive for reinstatement. It merely noted the petitioner’s grievance without addressing the legal consequences under service law."

Citing DIG Police v. S. Samuthiram and Pradip Kumar Banerjee v. Airports Authority of India, the Court reiterated that acquittal or sentence reduction does not by itself confer a right to reinstatement. It stated: "A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt."

The Court issued the following directions in its concluding portion: "From the pleadings, evidence, and the provisions contained in Section 4(d) of the Act, 2009, nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to establish that the said provision is either unconstitutional or arbitrary. Accordingly, the relief sought by the petitioner for declaring Section 4(d) of the Act, 2009 as unconstitutional cannot be accepted and stands rejected."

"Insofar as the other relief sought by the petitioner, which is in the nature of Mandamus, is concerned, the petitioner prays for his reinstatement into service... The observation made by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2007 cannot confer a right to reinstatement contrary to statutory provisions."

Also Read: Bombay HC Refuses To Recall Demolition Order | Says Mob Fury And Footfall On Claimed Dargah Can’t Establish Legality

"The University authorities have rightly rejected the petitioner’s claim after due consideration... The clause 'unless and until his employment is terminated' expressly clarifies that such protection is not available to a person whose services had already been terminated prior to the said date."

"The action of the University is well-reasoned, based on statutory provisions and relevant service records. This Court finds no arbitrariness, illegality, or perversity in the decision rendered by the Executive Council."

"Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. No case for interference is made out. The reliefs sought are hereby refused. No order as to costs."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava and Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocates

Case Title: Subhash Singh Thakur v. Union of India & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:35338-DB

Case Number: WPS No. 8502 of 2022

Bench: Justice Rajani Dubey, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad