PRAGATI MAHILA SAMAJ & ANR. versus ARUN & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 243 · Decided: 19-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016) 3 S.C.R. 243 
PRAGATI MAHILA SAMAJ & ANR. 
v. 
ARUN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6498 of2016) 
JULY 19,2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Service law: Termination from service of respondent 110. I-
lecturer - High Court quashed the termination order holding. that 
since the appointment was made on the basis of selection and 
interview, it has to be held as permanent - Held: Appointment to 
post of lecturer was part time in nature - Appointment being 
temporary as well as for fixed period. respondent no.I had no right 
to claim status of permanent employe.e in service - There was no 
iustification for High Court to hold that respondent no. I was 
appointed on permanent basis and that termination order )1•as bad 
in law. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The two appointment orders show that respondent 
no.I was temporarily appointed as Lecturer for one Session in 
the first instance and on the expiry of the first period, his 
appointment came to an end. Respondent No.2 then was 
appointed afresh second time, which period was then extended 
up to 30.04.I998. The adv.ertisement showed that the post of 
Lecturer for Geography was advertised as a part-time post. The 
appointment of the respondent No. I, whether first or second, 
since inception remained a "temporary appointment as part-time 
lecturer" for a fixed period and did not result in "permanent 
appointment" on the post of Lecturer. It also did not create any 
right in favour of respondent No. 1 so as to enable him to claim 
regularization in service. It is also not the case of respondent 
No.I and nor any finding was recorded by the High Court that 
the Management had followed the procedure prescribed under 
sub-sections (I) and (2) of Section 5 for filling the post against 
the permanent clear vacancy while selecting the respondent 
No. 1. Moreover, initial appointment of respondent No.I was 
243 
243 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
244 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 3 S.C.R. 
also not against the permanent vacancy nor he was appointed 
permanently by the Management by following the procedure 
prescribed under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 of the Act. 
[Paras 25, 27, 28] [251-E-F; 252-B-EJ 
2. When the rights of the parties are governed by the Act, 
then it is necessary for the Court in the first instance to decide 
the rights in the light of the mandate of the provisions of the 
Act. Respondent No. 1 neither challenged the constitutional 
validity of the Act and nor challenged the termination on the 
ground of mala tides attributable against any particular authority. 
Respondent No. 1 was also not able to point out any arbitrariness 
in the impugned action to enable the High Court to invoke Article 
14 of the Constitution for quashing the termination order. In 
these circumstances, there was no justification for the High Court 
to hold that respondent No.1 was appointed on permanent basis 
and that termination order was bad in law. [Para 29] [252-F-G] 
Hindustan Education Society & Am: vs. SK. Ka/eem 
SK. Gu/am Nabi & Ors (1997) 5 SCC 152: 1997 (2) 
SCR 910 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
1997 (2) SCR 910 
relied on 
Para 18 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6498 of 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2014 of the Single Bench . 
of the High Court of Bombay bench at Nagpur in W.P. 2374of1999. 
F 
A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv., Subhasish Bhowmick, Ms. Anamika, Advs. 
G 
H 
for the Appellants. 
Nitin Bhardwaj, Kishor Lambat, Sachin Pahwa, Mis. Lambat & 
Associates, Ms. Shubhada K. Phattankar, Nishant Ramakantrao 
Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 
01.08.2014 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Bombay Bench at 
Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 2374of1999 whereby the High Court allowed 
PRAGATI MAHILA SAMAJ & ANR. v. ARUN 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
the writ petition filed by respondent No. I herein and set aside the order 
dated 05.08.1998 passed by the College Tribunal, Nagpur University, 
Nagpur in Appeal No. N-10of1998 and quashed 2 the termination order 
datecj 31.03.1998 issued by appellant No. I herein by which the services 
of the respondent No. 1 had been terminated. The High Court further 
directed the concerned authorities to reinstate the respondent No. I on 
the post of Lecturer but without payment of any back wages to him. 
3. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.