Bengaluru professor who gave 19 years to her college reinstated after one-line termination: Court rules in her favour after finding she was actively teaching

A Bengaluru assistant professor who was dismissed through a one-line termination notice after nearly 19 years of service has won a legal battle for reinstatement. According to a report by The Times of India (TOI), the Educational Appellate Tribunal ruled that the termination was not carried out in accordance with the law and directed Jain College to reinstate the professor.

The case centred on Usha PS, who argued that, as a permanent employee, she could not be removed without following the due process laid down under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The tribunal ultimately found that the college had failed to justify its decision and that the termination lacked proper authority.

Professor served at Jain College for nearly two decades

According to TOI, Usha PS joined the Jain Group of Institutions in 2005 as a lecturer in life sciences at its JC Road campus. In January 2021, she was transferred to the Vasavi Road campus, where she served as an assistant professor in the same discipline.


After almost 19 years with the institution, she received a notice dated January 29, 2024, informing her that her employment would end after April 28, 2024. The notice reportedly stated only that it was being issued "in lieu thereof" and did not specify any reason for the termination.

Professor challenged the termination before the tribunal

According to TOI, Usha wrote to the college management on February 22, 2024, requesting that the termination notice be withdrawn and that she be allowed to continue in service until retirement.

She argued that, as a permanent teacher, her services could not be terminated without complying with Section 92 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, which governs the dismissal of teachers employed by private educational institutions.

Although the college acknowledged receiving her representation, it did not issue any further response. She subsequently approached the Educational Appellate Tribunal.

College cited declining enrolment and NEP implementation

In its defence, Jain College denied any wrongdoing and described the appeal as malicious, according to TOI.

The institution argued that enrolment in life sciences had been declining even before the Covid-19 pandemic and claimed Usha had been informed as early as December 2020 that she might need to explore alternative opportunities.

The college stated that it nevertheless retained her on humanitarian grounds and assigned her to teach several other subjects, including environmental science, the Indian Constitution, economics of human development, business law, corporate administration and banking law.

It further argued that the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 resulted in changes to the curriculum for BBA and B.Com courses. Following meetings held in August and October 2023, the college concluded that there were no longer any subjects matching Usha's academic specialisation and that she could not be assigned sufficient teaching hours to justify her continued employment.

The institution also relied on Clause 11 of her appointment letter, which permitted either party to terminate the employment by giving three months' notice without assigning reasons.

Cross-examination revealed inconsistencies in the college's case

According to TOI, the tribunal identified several inconsistencies during the cross-examination of the college's principal.

The principal initially denied that new faculty members had been recruited but later admitted that a lecturer holding an MBA in Human Resources had been appointed to teach relevant subjects.

He also acknowledged that banking law and constitutional law were core subjects and confirmed that three faculty members had been transferred around the same period to balance workloads.

When questioned about the authority to issue the termination notice, the principal was unable to produce any written approval from the institution's governing body. Instead, he referred to an unspecified telephonic instruction but could not provide any documentary record or date.

Tribunal found professor was actively teaching several core subjects

The tribunal also noted that Usha had, by then, obtained a law degree with a specialisation in constitutional law in addition to her qualification in zoology.

According to TOI, she had been teaching environmental science, the Indian Constitution and several other subjects across undergraduate programmes.

The tribunal found that the college's own records contradicted its argument that her workload had diminished. In fact, her teaching assignments reportedly increased from 17 classes per week during the 2021–22 academic year to 31 classes per week in 2022–23, continuing until the termination notice was issued.

It further observed that the college had appointed a new lecturer to teach subjects that Usha had already been handling, despite the lecturer lacking subject-specific qualifications.

Tribunal orders reinstatement

Taking into account Usha's nearly two decades of service, along with the absence of any disciplinary proceedings or complaints against her, the tribunal concluded that the termination was not supported by genuine administrative necessity.

According to TOI, the Educational Appellate Tribunal, presided over by XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge AM Nalini Kumari, ruled on June 29 that the termination order dated January 29, 2024, should be set aside.

The tribunal directed Jain College to reinstate Usha PS to her position as an assistant professor, holding that the termination had been issued without proper authority and without following the legal procedure required under the Karnataka Education Act.

Inputs from TOI