Dr. Jagathy Raj V.P. vs Dr. Rajitha Kumar S. & Ors.
Background
Two professors at Cochin University of Science and Technology were in line, by seniority, to be nominated Head of the Department/Director of the School of Management Studies on a rotational three-year basis. In 2017 the senior professor (the appellant) declined the post to focus on teaching and research, so the next-senior professor was appointed instead for a three-year term. When that term was ending in 2020, the appellant expressed willingness to take over, but the professor next in line (the respondent) objected, arguing the appellant had permanently given up his turn. The university's Syndicate nominated the appellant anyway, citing past instances where professors who once declined were later given the post in a subsequent rotation.
Decision Breakdown
The High Court's Division Bench had ruled that once the appellant relinquished his turn in 2017, he lost his claim forever, and the next junior professor (respondent) should get the post. The Supreme Court disagreed and restored the university's decision in the appellant's favour. It held that the university's governing statute did not say a one-time refusal permanently barred a professor from being considered when the next rotation came due, especially since the university had consistently followed this interpretation in the past (citing two prior instances of professors being reconsidered after initially declining). The Court applied the principle that a long-standing, reasonable practice in interpreting an ambiguous rule should not lightly be disturbed by courts.
Lesson Learnt
Declining an official rotation-based benefit or post for personal or professional reasons at one point in time does not automatically mean giving it up forever. Unless the governing rules explicitly say so, a person retains the right to be considered again in the next such opportunity.