Authority: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack

Order Date: 05 November 2026

Case Overview

  • The appellant, appointed Assistant Professor in the School of Biotechnology of KIIT University, received an offer letter on 12 May 2010 and an appointment letter on 29 May 2010, which stipulated a one‑year probation period subject to satisfactory performance.
  • He joined the post on 28 July 2010. An internal Enquiry Committee on 03 June 2011 reported unsatisfactory conduct and the University terminated his services on 20 June 2011, before the probation period expired.
  • The appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 17171 of 2011 challenging the termination. The learned Single Judge dismissed the termination on 29 September 2014, declaring the appellant’s service to be deemed continuous from 20 June 2011 to the date of judgment and awarding 60 % of back wages for that period.
  • The appellant submitted a re‑joining report on 09 October 2014; the University accepted it on 16 October 2014 but directed him to complete the remaining one month and seven days of probation, stating the earlier interruption reset the probation period.
  • Subsequent office orders (03 Nov 2014, 15 Nov 2014) alleged abandonment, gross dereliction of duty and indiscipline. An Appraisal Committee on 08 Nov 2014 concluded the appellant was not fit for regularisation.
  • On 22 November 2014 the University issued an order terminating his employment effective 23 November 2014, asserting the probation period had expired.
  • The appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 23250 of 2014. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ on 17 February 2017, holding that the appellant remained on probation and that the termination was based on unsatisfactory performance, not misconduct.
  • The appellant appealed this judgment. Amicus Curiae Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra argued that the earlier judgment’s direction of deemed continuity precluded a fresh probation period and that the termination was punitive, requiring a departmental enquiry under natural‑justice principles.
  • Respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Ms. Pami Rath, contended that the earlier judgment only restored service status without conferring confirmation and that the University retained the right to assess performance before confirming the appellant.
  • The Court examined the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers…) Regulations 2010, particularly Clause 11.1‑11.3, which prescribe a minimum one‑year probation, extendable by a maximum of one additional year, with automatic confirmation after the first year unless an extension order is issued before expiry.
  • The Court noted that the maximum permissible probation period is two years and that the University had not issued any order extending probation beyond the initial year.
  • Considering the 29 September 2014 judgment that deemed the appellant’s service continuous and the statutory limit on probation, the Court held that the appellant’s probation had already expired by the time of the 22 November 2014 termination order.
  • Consequently, the termination order was held to be contrary to the UGC Regulations and to the earlier judicial determination; it could not be sustained.

Final Outcome

  • The Court set aside the judgment dated 17 February 2017 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 23250 of 2014.
  • It declared that the appellant’s probationary period had ended, his employment status is confirmed, and the University’s termination order dated 22 November 2014 is void.
  • The appellant is entitled to 60 % of back wages for the period from 20 June 2011 to the date of this judgment, consistent with the earlier award; no alteration to that percentage is made for the subsequent period.
  • The University may, if it wishes, initiate separate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, but such proceedings must follow due‑process requirements and are independent of the present termination order.

Topics: Employment Termination, UGC Regulations, Back Wages