B.T. KRISHNAMURTHY versus SRI BASAVESWARA EDUCATION SOCIETY & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 359 · Decided: 08-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 5 $.C.R. 359 
B.T. KRISHNAMURTHY 
v. 
SRI BASAVESWARA EDUCATION SOCIETY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2948 of 2013 etc.) 
APRIL 8, 2013 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Reinstatement and regularization - Of part-time lecturer c 
- Held: Temporary! part-time lecturer working without any 
appointment "fetter and without any selection process, cannot 
be reinstated and his services cannot be regularized. 
Termination - Temporary/part-time Lecturer - Working 
without appointment letter - Termination of service orally D 
communicated - Legality of - Held: Termination simp/icitor is 
not per se illegal and not violative of principles of natural 
justice. 
The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2949 was working 
E 
as a Lecturer in the College run by respondent-Society 
from 28.6.1990. No appointment letter was issued to him. 
On 22. 7 .1995 he was orally told that his services were 
terminated. Thereafter, the college invited applications for 
appointment on the post of Lecturer. Respondent No.1 
F 
also applied for the same. Another person was 
appointed. Since the person appointed, left the service, 
· another advertisement was issued for appointment on 
the said post, and appointment was made thereon. 
Respondent No.1 approached the court challenging his G 
termination from service. Education Appellate Tribunal 
directed the Society to reinstate respondent No.1 with all 
consequential benefits and to regularize his services. The 
order of the Tribunal was upheld by Single Judge of High 
· 
359 
H 
360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 
A Court as well as Division Bench of High Court. Hence the 
present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Tribunal completely misdirected itself 
B in passing an order of regularisation and reinstatement 
in a case, where the respondent allegedly worked in the 
College as part- time Lecturer without any appointment 
letter and without any selection process. Since the 
Society never issued any letter of appointment a letter of 
C termination was also not served upon the respondent. 
[Para 24) [370-B-C] 
2. In the absence of any appointment letter, issued 
in favour of the respondent, as he was temporary/part-
D time Lecturer in the College, there cannot be any 
legitimate expectation for his continuing in the service .. 
This was the reason that when in the years 1995 and 
1996, two persons were appointed one after the other on 
the post of Lecturer in History, the respondent did not 
E challenge the said appointments. Even assuming that the 
respondent was permitted to work in the College as part-
time lecturer for some period, the action of the 
management of the college asking him to stop doing 
work cannot be held to be punitive. The termination 
$implicitor is not per se illegal and is not violative of 
F principles of natural justice. [Para 25) [370-D-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2948 of 2013. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2011 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in WA No. 1812 of 2006. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 2949 of 2013. 
H 
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, P.S. Patwalia, C.M. Angadi, Vijay 
B.T. KRISHNAMURTHY v. SRI BASAVESWARA 
361 
EDUCATION SOCIETY & ORS. 
Kumar, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Bipin Kalappa, Krishma, 
A 
Ajay Singh, Tushar Bakshi, N. Ganpathy, S.N. Bhat, D.P. 
Chaturvedi, N.P.S. Panwar, Ravi Panwar, V.N. Raghupathy for 
the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Since these two appeals arose out of the common 
judgment and order dated 11.07 .2011 passed in Writ Appeal 
Nos. 1812 of 2006 and 1865 of 2006, the same have been 
C 
heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 
3. By the impugned judgment and order, a Division Bench 
of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeals and 
affirmed the order dated 20 Of 2006 passed by a learned 
Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 52603 of 2003 and 54201 
D 
of 2003 and the order dated 03.12.2002 passed by the 
Education Appellate Tribunal in EAT No.16 of 1996. 
4. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:-
E 
5. Respondent No.1 T.D. Viswanath, in Civil Appeal arising 
out SLP(C) No. 27130 of 2011 (in short respondent no.1) 
alleged to have been appointed as a Lecturer in Sri 
Basaveswara Junior College (in short, 'the college') run by Sri 
Basaveswara Education Society (in short, 'the Society'). 
F 
According to the said respondent No.1, since the date of 
appoin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.