LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus ANITA & ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 4 S.C.R. 882 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ANITA & ANR. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6132-33 of2016) JULY 12,2016 [T.S. THAKUR, CJI, R. BANUMATHI AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] Service Law - Appointment - On contractual basis - Propriety of - Government resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006 approving filling up 471 posts on contractual basis - As per the resolutions appointments were to be made initially for eleven months,. to be renewed twice (11 months each time) and after maximum contractual period fresh process of selection was to be initiated - Appointment of respondents -After expiry of term of the respondents, State issued fresh advertisement - Thereafter respondents challenged the conditions in the Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006 - State Administrative Tribunal held that the posts were permanent in nature - However, there was no direction to regularise the respondents - Writ Petition by the State as well as respondents - - Dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: The Government Resolutions show that intention of the State was to fill up the posts on contractual basis - The terms of the agreement which the respondents had entered into further reiterate that the appointments were contractual - The respondents, after having accepted contractual appointment, are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment - The Governments policy decision to fill up the posts on contractual basis, could not have been interfered with by the Tribunal and the High Court - Estoppel - Administrative Law - Policy decision. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The intention of the State Government to fill up the posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors on contractual basis is manifest from the clauses in Government Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006. The terms of the agreement which the respondents have entered into, also 882 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ANITA & ANR. ETC. reiterate the stand of the State that the appointments were purely contractual and that the respondents shall not be entitled to claim any right or interest of permanent service in the Government. Conditions of respondents' engagement is governed by the terms of agreement. After having accepted contractual appointment, the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment. [Paras 14 and 16] [887-G; 888-H; 889-A-B] 2. Creation of posts was only for administrative purposes for sanction of the amount towards expenditure incurred, but merely because the posts were created, they cannot be held to be permanent in nature. When the Government has taken a policy decision to fill the posts on contractual basis, the Tribunal and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the policy decision to hold that the appointments are permanent in nature. JJ,>ara 1 ?l [889-Dl CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6132- 33 of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition Nos. 9145 of2010 and 9160 of2010 WITH C. A. Nos. 6134, 6135-36, 6137,6138, 6139, 6140, 6141-42, 6143, 6144,6145,6146,6147-48,6149,6150,6151,6152-S3,6154,6155,6156, 6157of2016. Madhvi Divan, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Vishal Jogdand, Debasis Misra, Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Prerna Kumari, Binay Kumar Das, Sachin Patil, Shriram P. Pingle, Dilip Annasahed Taur, Amo! V. Deshmukh, Ms. Kanchan Vohra, A nil Kumar, Dr. Kailash Chand, Ms. Madhavi Divan, Atul B. Dakh, Nitin S. Tambwekar, B. S. Sai, K. Rajeev, Shankar Shillarge, Mis. Lawyer's Knit and Co), Vinayak Dixit, Sr. Adv., Pranav Sachdeva, Roh it Kr. Singh, Roh it Kumar Singh, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Ashutosh Dubey Abhishek Chauhan, V. S. Rawat, Satyajit A. Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desi, Akash Kakade, Advs. for the appearing parties. 883 A B c D E F G H 884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016]4 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B c D E F G H R. BANUMATHI, J. l. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. This batch of appeals has been filed against the order dated 28.03.2012 and other impugned orders passed by the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad whereby 4 71 posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors created by Government Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006 for appointment on contractual basis under the Director General of Polic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.