B.D. JADHAVAR versus K.D. BHAGWAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 265 · Decided: 01-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

B.D. JADHAVAR 
A 
v. 
K.D. BHAGWAN AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 1, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Ad hoc appointment as Lecturer-College not having requisite number 
of students so as to allow continuance of appointment-Consequential trans-
C 
fer to another college-lnstead of rep01ting for duty ad hoc appointee seeking 
regular appointment-Decline of such request-Obtaining order for regular 
appointment from Tribunal-In the meanwhile college making regular ap-
pointment-As a result college not in a position to take the adhoc appointee 
on duty-Held in such circumstances no direction can be issued for appoint- D 
me!Jl of the ad hoc appointee. 
The appellant was appointed as an ad hoc lecturer in the first 
respondent-college. Since the college did not have the requisite number of 
students to allow him to continue on that post, it requested the Director 
of Education to transfer the appellant to some other college. Accordingly E 
he was transferred to the third respondent-college and was directed to 
report himself for duty. However, instead of reporting for duty he asked 
for a letter of appointment as a regular teacher which was declined. 
Thereafter the appellant obtained an order from the Tribunal for appoint· 
ment as a permanent teacher. Since in the meanwhile a lecturer had F 
already been appointed the third respondent-College was not in a position 
to take the appellant on duty. Thereafter, the appellant unsuccessfully 
invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that (1) 
since by virtue of the policy of the Government, the appellant had put in G 
more than two years' service as temporary lecturer, he must be deemed to 
be a regular lecturer; having been appointed as a lecturer in the first 
respondent-college he must he deemed to be a regular lecturer in that 
college; (ii) the omission to take him on duty amounts to dismissal without. 
enquiry. 
265 
H 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS' 11995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
B 
c 
HELD : In the circumstances of the case the appellant himself is 
responsible to lose his right to the post of lecturer. Until he is confirmed 
to any post according to rules, he cannot claim the status as a regularly 
appointed lecturer. The question of holding enquiry does not arise nor the 
refusal to allow joining amounts to dismissal. Therefore, it is diflicult to 
give direction to consider him for appointment. [267-H; 268-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal No. 8380 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.93 of the Bombay High 
Court in W,P. No. 426 of 1985. 
V.M. Tarkunde and Ms. M. Karanjawala for the Appellant. 
D 
S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents. 
E 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though the 
appellant was initially appointed as an ad hoc lecturer in the first respon-
dent-College which had not had the requisite students to allow the appel-
lant to continue on that post, they had written to the Director of Higher 
Education to have him transferred to any other college. Consequently, the 
Director of Higher Education had written to the Principal of the first 
respondent-College to have him relieved so that he should be posted and 
instructed the third respondent-College where there was a vacancy, to have 
him joined therein. Accordingly, on July 14, 1985, the Principal of third 
respondent-College 
had agreed to and the appellant was directed to 
report for duty immediately in the third respondent-College. Unfortunate-
G ly, instead of reporting himself for duty, he went to the College, asked them 
to give him the letter of appointment as permanent teacher. Since they did 
not give letter of appointment, he went to the Tribunal and obtained an 
order to have him posted as regular lecturer. By that time six months time 
had lapsed. Then he wrote a letter on January 28, 1985 requesting the third 
H responde.nt to take him back on duty; a telegram was sent by the third 
- .... 
B. D. JADHAV AR v. K. D. BHAGW AN 
267 
respondent informing the appellant that he need not come for joining the A 
duty. Then he filed the writ petition in the High Court. The High Court by 
its order dated August 30, 1993 in C.W.P. No. 426 of 1985 dismissed the 
writ petition. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
Shri V.M. Tarkunde, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 
app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.