Courts Must Defer to Expert Committees in Academic Matters: Manipur HC Upholds Scientist’s Termination

The Manipur High Court has upheld the termination of a contractual scientist employed at the Institute of Bioresources and Sustainable Development (IBSD), holding that where an employee is appointed on a fixed-term contract subject to performance review, the employer is entitled to terminate the contract in accordance with the governing rules and contractual terms if the employee’s performance is found unsatisfactory.

The Court also reiterated that courts must exercise restraint in interfering with the decisions of expert committees in academic and scientific institutions, particularly in matters involving evaluation of performance and academic expertise.

A single-judge bench of Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh dismissed the writ petition challenging the termination of a Scientist–E (Natural Product Chemistry) at IBSD, observing that the petitioner’s appointment was clearly contractual for a period of five years and subject to review by an assessment committee.

The Court held that the authorities acted within the framework of the applicable recruitment rules and contractual agreement when they terminated the petitioner’s services after the committee found his performance to be below average.

The bench concluded that no illegality or procedural irregularity had been established in the termination process.

The petitioner had been appointed in 2013 as Scientist–E (Natural Product Chemistry) at IBSD following a selection process conducted pursuant to an advertisement issued in April, 2011.

The appointment letter stated that the position would initially be contractual for a period of five years and could be regularised upon satisfactory performance following review by the institute.

The petitioner accepted the offer and executed a contract agreement on 03.04.2013, under which he joined the institute on the same date.

The agreement provided that the appointment would remain contractual for five years and that the employee’s suitability for regular appointment would be assessed before the expiry of that period.

The contract also contained a clause permitting termination by either party with three months’ notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof.

Before the expiry of the contractual period, the petitioner approached the High Court in an earlier writ petition seeking directions for regularisation of his services.

The Court disposed of that petition in May, 2018 by directing the authorities to undertake the review process for considering regularisation.

Pursuant to this direction, the institute constituted a nine-member Assessment Committee in May, 2018 to evaluate the performance of several scientists, including the petitioner.

The petitioner was required to submit a self-assessment report and participate in a performance review that included a presentation and interview.

Following the evaluation, the committee recorded that the petitioner’s performance was “below average” and did not recommend him for regularisation.

The assessment report indicated that the petitioner had obtained only 18 out of 100 marks in the evaluation, placing him within the “below average” category as per the committee’s guidelines.

Acting on this recommendation, the institute issued an order in July, 2018 terminating the petitioner’s contractual employment with immediate effect, while paying him three months’ salary in lieu of notice as provided in the contract.

The petitioner submitted representations and an appeal to the authorities, both of which were rejected.

Challenging the termination, the petitioner argued before the High Court that the post had not been advertised as contractual and that his appointment was intended to be permanent subject to regularisation.

He further contended that the Assessment Committee had been improperly constituted and lacked experts in the specific field of Natural Product Chemistry.

The Court rejected the contention regarding the nature of appointment, noting that the recruitment rules governing the institute clearly provided that appointments would initially be on contract for a maximum period of five years.

Under these rules, a performance review would be conducted at the end of four years, following which the candidate could either be regularised or have the contract terminated if the performance was found unsatisfactory.

It was observed that the petitioner had accepted the appointment with full knowledge of these conditions and had executed the contractual agreement explicitly providing for a five-year contractual term and performance-based review.

The Court, therefore, held that the argument that the appointment was permanent or regular in nature had no merit.

With respect to the challenge to the Assessment Committee, the Court noted that although the recruitment rules contemplated a committee of five members, the institute had constituted a nine-member committee because it was required to assess multiple scientists across different disciplines; it was held that enlarging the committee’s composition in such circumstances was reasonable and did not render the process illegal.

The bench also declined to examine whether certain committee members were experts specifically in Natural Product Chemistry.

It observed that determining the expertise of scientists in specialised academic fields involved technical assessments and that courts must ordinarily defer to the decisions of expert committees in academic matters unless mala fides or clear illegality is demonstrated.

Since the petitioner had participated in the evaluation process without protest and had not challenged the committee’s composition at the relevant stage, the Court held that he could not subsequently question the committee’s expertise.

Conclusively, the Court noted that the termination was consistent with both the contractual terms and the recruitment rules, which permitted termination of a contractual appointment where performance was assessed as unsatisfactory.

Finding no illegality or arbitrariness in the actions of the authorities, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Devi Datt Joshi v. Union of India & Anr.

Bench: Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh

Date of Judgment: 10.03.2026