BAHUDDESHIYA VIKAS SANSTHA THROUGH PRESIDENT B.B. KARANJEKAR & ORS. versus KU. JAYA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 718 · Decided: 09-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
WAINGANGA BAHUDDESHIYA VIKAS SANSTHA THROUGH
PRESIDENT B.B. KARANJEKAR & ORS.
v.
KU. JAYA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6226 of 2019)
AUGUST 09, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service law: Termination – Appointment of respondent No. 1
as temporary full time Lecturer on ad-hoc basis – Termination of
services since performance was unsatisfactory – Challenge to –
Tribunal and the Single Judge of the High Court upheld the
termination, however the Division Bench set aside the same – On
appeal, held: Order of termination of services is simpliciter without
any stigma noticing that the work is not satisfactory – Appointment
of respondent No. 1 was not on probation but, was on ad-hoc basis
– Such temporary appointment pending filling up of a vacancy on
regular basis does not confer any right at par with the candidate
appointed on regular basis – Management had right to terminate
the services during ad-hoc period on account of unsatisfactory work
– Decision to arrive at the unsatisfactory work is motive and not
the foundation of termination of services – Furthermore, the opinion
of the Principal, does not contain any adverse comments but the
comments in relation to the work of respondent No. 1 which cannot
be made basis for setting aside the termination – Thus, the order by
the Division Bench of the High Court not sustainable and is set
aside – Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 – s. 59.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: It is found that the Division Bench has travelled
much beyond the controversy involved in the writ petition. The
appointment of respondent No. 1 is categorically on ad-hoc basis
till such time full time Lecturer is appointed. The order of
termination of services is simpliciter without any stigma noticing
that the work is not satisfactory. The appointment of respondent
No. 1 was not on probation but, it was purely ad-hoc appointment
and the Management has kept right to terminate the services
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 718
718
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
719
during ad-hoc period on account of unsatisfactory work. The
temporary appointment pending filling up of a vacancy on regular
basis does not confer any right at par with the candidate appointed
on regular basis. The appointment of the respondent No.1 was
not on probation as there is no such condition in the letter of
appointment. The services of an employee can be dispensed with
on account of unsatisfactory work. The decision to arrive at the
unsatisfactory work is motive and not the foundation of
termination of services. The opinion of the Principal, which does
not contain any adverse comments but the comments are in
relation to the work of the respondent No. 1, such comments
cannot be made basis for setting aside the termination of an
adhoc employee. The order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court is clearly unsustainable in law. The same is set aside.
[Para 9, 13, 15][721-E; 724-C-D, G]
Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries
Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (1999) 2 SCC 21 : [1998] 3
Suppl. SCR 558; Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay
Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences & Anr. (2002) 1 SCC
520 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 41; Rajesh Kohli v. High
Court of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC
783 : [2010] 11 SCR 699; Wainganga Bahu-uddeshiya
& Ors. v. Diwakar & Ors. Wainganga 2012 SCC
OnLine Bom 1414; Bahu-uddeshiya Vikas Sanstha &
Ors. v. Anil & Ors. 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1233 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 558
referred to
Para 10
[2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 41
referred to
Para 11
[2010] 11 SCR 699
referred to
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6226 of
2019.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2017 of the High
Court of  Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, Nagpur in L.P.A.
No.235 of 2010.
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Gagan Sanghi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
Advs. for the Appellants.
WAINGANGA BAHUDDESHIYA VIKAS SANSTHA THR. PRESIDENT B.B.
KARANJEKAR v. KU. JAYA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
Pavani Mahalaxmi, Sr. Adv., Satyajit A. Desai, Ms. Anagha S.
Desai, Anshuman Singh, Kishor Ram Lambat, Sachin Pahwa,
M/s Lambat And Associates, Amol Chitale, Nishant R. Katneshwarkar,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, whereby an order passed by the lear
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.