The Patna High Court has delivered an instructive order concerning a tenure-track faculty member whose services at a publicly funded university were treated as concluded without a promised tenure review. The case arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an office order dated 18 February 2019, which communicated that the faculty member’s tenure-track term had not been extended and directed him to vacate the accommodation and obtain a No Dues Certificate. The crucial backdrop: the petitioner had joined the newly revived university as part of its founding faculty under an express “tenure-track” scheme, with an expectation—recorded in the employment contract—of a tenure review in the third year.

The facts, as noticed by the Court, were largely undisputed. The faculty member joined as an Assistant Professor (tenure track) in January 2015 following a 2014 selection process. Although his contract contemplated a tenure review in the academic year 2017–2018, the review did not occur. Instead, the university extended his tenure-track term from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018 on the same terms and conditions, while assuring that the review would be held subsequently.

In April 2018, the faculty member received a prestigious visiting fellowship in the United States. He sought—and was granted—permission by the university to avail it, with contemporaneous communications acknowledging institutional support for the opportunity. During this period, the faculty member repeatedly requested clarification and extension of his tenure-track contract beyond 31 December 2018. However, on 18 February 2019, he received the impugned order stating that the term had come to a close, without disclosure of any tenure review having been conducted or any Governing Board decision on non-confirmation. The petitioner challenged this action, asserting that a tenure-track scheme necessarily requires a timely, fair tenure review, and that non-renewal without such review violates the contract, the statutes applicable to the university, and principles reflected in the UGC Regulations. He also disputed the suggestion of contractual breach, pointing to the university’s formal permission and public acknowledgment of his fellowship.

The university defended the action on the footing that the appointment was contractual and entirely probationary, that no long leave was envisaged in a probationary tenure-track contract, and that the petitioner had sought extension while being away on a residential fellowship. It further pointed to Section 33 of the founding Act—regarding written contracts and arbitration—as well as to clauses said to require prior written permission and to restrict prolonged absence.

After reviewing the record, the Patna High Court refrained from simply terming the action as a lawful “non-extension.” Instead, it highlighted key deficiencies: the tenure review promised in the employment framework had not been conducted; the permission for the fellowship was granted by the university; and there was an absence of a reasoned institutional decision by the competent authority on confirmation/non-confirmation pursuant to review. On the question of arbitration, the Court noted that the statutory reference to an Arbitration Tribunal is engaged only if the employee requests such reference; the existence of an arbitration clause did not bar the writ petition in these circumstances.

Significantly, while the Court did not grant blanket reinstatement, it issued time-bound, pragmatic directions. First, it left the question of extension of the tenure-track to the Vice-Chancellor’s “wisdom,” directing a fresh, objective consideration of the faculty member’s entire record and “excellent performance” within two months of the petitioner applying to rejoin. Second, on the claim of pending increments, dearness allowance, and other emoluments, the Court directed the university to calculate and pay the amounts within three months from receipt of the order; if payment is delayed beyond that timeline, interest at 10% per annum would apply from the date due until realization.

The tenor of the judgment is clear: tenure-track frameworks in universities carry substantive expectations of process and fairness. When an institution promises a tenure review and benefits from the faculty member’s academic contributions—including high-profile fellowships it has endorsed—it must honor its own procedural commitments or justify departures through decisions of the competent authority, not through unreasoned administrative communications. The Court’s calibrated relief balances institutional autonomy with the rule-of-law requirement that contractual and statutory frameworks governing academic employment be respected in letter and spirit.

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

This case concerns a tenure-track Assistant Professor who joined a newly established international university in Bihar as part of its founding faculty. The initial employment offer (2014) and the formal contract (2015) expressly contemplated a “tenure-track” scheme, in which the faculty member would undergo a tenure review in the third year, potentially leading to confirmation. The review did not occur in 2017–2018. Instead, the university extended the tenure-track for one more year (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018) with an assurance of review later.

In 2018, the faculty member was awarded a prestigious 10-month visiting fellowship in the United States. He sought permission, and the university formally granted it. The university even publicized the achievement. While on fellowship, the faculty member kept requesting clarity and extension of his contract beyond 31 December 2018. On 18 February 2019, the university issued an office order informing him that his “term” had ended on 31 December 2018, directing him to vacate accommodation and complete no-dues formalities. No tenure review had been conducted. No reasons were given regarding any decision by the competent authority on non-confirmation.

The petitioner argued that tenure-track is not a mere fixed-term contract; it is a framework with a built-in review process. Denying an academic the promised review defeats the very essence of tenure-track. The petitioner also argued that there was no breach of contract: the fellowship was availed with the university’s knowledge and written permission, and therefore could not be used to justify a non-extension or termination. He further referenced the statutory scheme, the university’s own statutes and ordinances, and the UGC Regulations that underscore due process in confirmation and review.

The university countered that the entire appointment—original and extended—was probationary and contractual. It claimed the petitioner sought a long residential fellowship that was incompatible with probationary service, and asserted that prior written permission and routing “through proper channel” were not complied with to its satisfaction. It also contended that there is no entitlement to automatic extension.

The High Court’s approach was careful and structured:

1. Tenure-track versus mere contract: The Court recognized that the petitioner joined as part of a tenure-track scheme, with a recorded promise of a review. The failure to hold that review, followed by a bare administrative intimation of non-extension, undermined the procedural discipline expected in such appointments.
2. Permission for fellowship: The record showed the university had granted permission and publicized the fellowship. This undercut the narrative that the petitioner had unilaterally absented himself or acted in breach. When an institution encourages international engagements, it must align its HR decisions with those endorsements.
3. Competent authority and reasons: Decisions on confirmation or non-confirmation in a tenure-track framework are not to emanate merely from an administrative office order. The Court emphasized the need for the competent authority to consider the academic’s full record and take a reasoned decision consistent with the contract and statutory scheme.
4. Arbitration clause: The Court clarified that the arbitration route in the founding statute becomes relevant only if the employee requests it. The existence of an arbitration clause does not automatically oust writ jurisdiction, especially when procedural fairness in public employment at a public institution is implicated.

Relief granted: Rather than ordering reinstatement straightaway, the Court issued targeted directions: (a) the Vice-Chancellor must consider the faculty member’s case for extension on merits within two months if the petitioner applies to rejoin; and (b) pending increments, DA, and other emoluments must be computed and paid within three months, failing which interest at 10% p.a. will accrue from the due date until payment.

Why this matters: The judgment underscores that tenure-track carries legally cognizable procedural expectations. Universities can design rigorous standards for tenure and set high bars for confirmation, but they must run the promised review fairly and at the proper time, especially when the institution itself has facilitated and praised the faculty member’s academic engagement elsewhere. The order strikes a balance: it preserves administrative autonomy (by directing reconsideration rather than blanket reinstatement) while protecting the faculty member’s right to a fair process and timely financial dues.

For universities in Bihar and beyond, the message is practical: when you create tenure-track positions, you must honor the review process, document decisions of the competent authority, and communicate reasons. For faculty, the decision signals that courts will insist on procedural fidelity where public institutions are involved and promises of tenure review are recorded in writing.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)

• For public universities: Tenure-track is not a label but a process. If a university promises a review, it must conduct it within the contractual timeline or record compelling reasons for deviation through the competent authority.
• For faculty and researchers: International fellowships or visiting positions endorsed by the university cannot later be treated as a default or unilateral absence to justify adverse action, absent a reasoned decision by the competent authority.
• For governance: The Court’s calibrated relief—directing reconsideration by the Vice-Chancellor and ordering payment of financial dues with a deterrent interest clause—encourages institutional compliance without paralyzing administrative discretion.
• Policy takeaway: Institutions should align their HR manuals, tenure statutes, and leave/fellowship policies to avoid gaps that lead to litigation. Clear, reasoned orders must accompany decisions affecting career progression.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Whether a tenure-track appointment can be treated as concluded without a tenure review.
  Decision: The Court indicated that a promised tenure review is integral to tenure-track; non-conduct of review coupled with a bare “non-extension” communication is procedurally unsatisfactory. The matter of extension must be considered afresh by the Vice-Chancellor on merits within two months of the petitioner’s application.
• Effect of university’s permission for an international fellowship on alleged breach.
  Decision: Since permission was granted and publicly acknowledged, the fellowship could not be recast as an unauthorized absence justifying adverse action. This factual position weighed against the university’s breach narrative.
• Whether arbitration under the founding statute ousts writ jurisdiction.
  Decision: No. Arbitration under Section 33 is employee-option driven. It applies only if the employee seeks reference. The writ was maintainable given the public character of the university and the nature of the grievance.
• Entitlement to financial dues (increments, DA, other emoluments) and interest.
  Decision: The university must calculate and pay dues within three months; failing which, 10% per annum interest applies from the date due until payment.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 324 (para 38)
• Pradeep v. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. & Ors., (2022) 3 SCC 683
• Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. & Anr., (2021) 6 SCC 15 (paras 66–67)
• Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682 (para 55(v))

Case Title

Tenure-track Assistant Professor v. Nalanda University & Others

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3979 of 2020

Citation(s)

2025 (1) PLJR 276

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioner: Mr. Md. Harun Quareshi, Advocate
• For the University: Mr. Anjani Kumar, Senior Advocate
• For the Union of India: Mrs. Kanak Verma, Central Government Counsel

Link to Judgment

MTUjMzk3OSMyMDIwIzEjTg==-uLaUDGrhpw4=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.