Cause Title: Maitreyee Chakraborty vs The Tripura University & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 16944 of 2022]
Judgment Date: August 22, 2024
Quorum/Bench: J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
The basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is founded on the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in Government dealings with individuals. It recognises that a public authority's promise or past conduct will give rise to a legitimate expectation. The doctrine is premised on the notion that public authorities, while performing their public duties, ought to honour their promises or past practices.[Para 32]
Appellant's submission:
The Appellant argued that the decision not to confirm her appointment was illegal, as she had undergone regular selection, performed satisfactorily, and the lien vacancy had been vacated.
Respondent's submission:
The University contended it had discretion regarding continuance, and readvertising was in the larger interest of candidates who might not have applied due to the lien status.
The mandate of Ram Pravesh Singh (supra) as reiterated in Sivanandan C.T. (supra) that the appellant was entitled to an acceptable explanation for the denial of the expectation remains unfulfilled. This is an additional ground on which the appellant should succeed. [Para 35]
In Ram Pravesh Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 381, this Court observed that the repository of the legitimate expectation is entitled to an explanation as to the cause for denial of the expected benefit flowing from the representation held out. [Para 32]
Decision of the Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the University to place the Appellant's case for confirmation before the Executive Council within four weeks, granting all consequential benefits. The Court held that the University's decision was arbitrary and violated the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Comments