Contractual Job? Still Have Rights! Karnataka HC Rules Against Arbitrary Termination

HC Protects Contractual Lecturer from Unfair Dismissal

Bengaluru- In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court on July 14, quashed an order passed by Bangalore North University terminating the services of a guest lecturer while also barring him from applying for any teaching position in the university for three years. The court held that the termination order was “stigmatic” and violated principles of natural justice since no proper inquiry or opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the punitive order.

The petitioner, Dr. Manjunath R, had been serving as a guest lecturer in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication at Bangalore North University since 2018. His appointment was renewed periodically, with the latest contract issued on December 7, 2024, for the academic year 2024-25. However, on April 9, 2025, the university abruptly terminated his services and imposed a three-year ban on his reappointment, citing multiple allegations, including misconduct, dereliction of duty, and harassment of women employees.

Aggrieved by the order, Dr. Manjunath approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that the termination was arbitrary, punitive, and passed without granting him a fair opportunity to defend himself.

Key Arguments by the Petitioner

 The petitioner argued that the termination order was passed without issuing any prior notice or conducting an inquiry, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

The order contained serious allegations, including harassment of women employees, which cast a stigma on his career. Such an order could not have been passed without a formal inquiry.  One of the charges against him was that he had criticized the Deputy Commissioner and Higher Education Minister in a press statement. The petitioner contended that as a citizen, he had the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) to raise public interest issues.

 Except for one charge, no formal notice was issued for the remaining allegations, denying him a chance to submit a proper defense.

University’s Defense

The university argued that since the petitioner was a temporary guest lecturer, his services could be terminated as per the contract terms without a full-fledged inquiry.

The university claimed that the petitioner had admitted to some allegations in his reply, making an inquiry unnecessary.

The decision to terminate was taken in a Syndicate meeting after considering his explanations.

Court’s Observations

Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad, presiding over the case, made several crucial observations:

Stigmatic Termination Requires Due Process: The court noted that the termination order listed 12 serious charges, including harassment of women employees, which required a formal inquiry. “If the order of termination is stigmatic, the principle of natural justice has to be followed. After hearing the parties, an order has to be passed,” the court emphasized.

Right to Free Speech Upheld:

Regarding the press statement issue, the court cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s judgment in Pickering v. Board of Education and the Indian Supreme Court’s ruling in Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, which protect public employees’ right to criticize government actions in public interest.

“The newspaper statement made by the petitioner is not misconduct. As a resident of Kolar District, he had the right under Article 19(1)(a) to raise concerns about public welfare,” the court held.

No Inquiry for Serious Charges: The court found that most allegations, including harassment claims, were not properly investigated. The university had not referred the matter to the Internal Complaints Committee under the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, 2013.

Without any materials against the petitioner and without giving any opportunity, the impugned order mentions that the petitioner committed such an offence. This is a clear violation of procedural fairness,” the court remarked.

Precedent on Contractual Employees: The court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Vijaya Kumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala (2020), which held that even probationary employees cannot be terminated on stigmatic grounds without a proper inquiry.

Similarly, in Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), the Supreme Court ruled that contractual employees must be given a hearing if termination is based on misconduct.

Allowing the petition, the court:

1. Quashed the termination order dated April 9, 2025.
2. Directed the university to reinstate the petitioner.
3. Granted liberty to the university to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with law.

“The impugned order is ex-facie stigmatic and punitive. Such an order could be issued only after subjecting the incumbent to a regular inquiry as per service rules,” the court held.

The ruling reinforces the legal principle that even temporary or contractual employees cannot be dismissed on punitive grounds without due process. It also highlights the importance of protecting freedom of speech for public servants raising legitimate concerns.

Legal experts say the judgment will have far-reaching consequences for universities and other institutions employing guest faculty, ensuring that arbitrary terminations are scrutinized by courts.