VIDYA VARDHAKA SANGHA AND ANR. versus Y.D. DESHPANDE AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 21-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VIDYA VARDHAKA SANGHA AND ANR. 
Y.D. DESHPANDE AND ORS. 
B 
SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE. JJ.] 
Service Law-Appointment-On temporaty!contract basis for specific 
C period-Effect-Held: Appointment comes to an end by efjlux of time-Such 
person has no right to continue on the post, and as such cannot challenge 
its termination. 
The questions which arose for consideration in these appeals was 
whether appointees on temporary basis/contract basis for specific period had 
D the right to continue to the post after lapse of the period. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: The appointment made on probation/ad hoc basis/temporary 
basis for a specific period of time comes to an end by efflux of time and the 
E person holding such post can have no right tu continue on the post and ask 
for regularisation etc. In the instant appeals, the respondents having accepted 
the appointment including the terms and conditions stipulated in the 
appointment orders, joined the posts in question, and continued on the said 
post for some years and allowed the period for which they were appointed to 
F have been elapsed by efflux of time, thus they are not now permitted to turn 
their back and say that their appointments could not be terminated on the 
basis of their appointment letters nor say that they could not be treated as 
temporary employee or employee on contract basis. (472-A-DI 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4224 of2006. 
From the Final Common Judgment dated 15.6.2005 of the High Court of 
Kamataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 2807 of 2002. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 4225 of2006. 
470 
VIDYAVARDHAKASANGHAv. Y.D.DESHPANDE[LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
471 
S.N. Bhat, N.P.S. Panwar, D.P. Chaturvedi and Mayuri Kacker for the A 
Appellants. 
K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. 
Heard Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 
appellants and Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 
the respondents. 
B 
c 
Civil Appeal No.4224/2006 arising out of SLP(C) No.16412 of 2005 and 
Civil Appeal No.4225/2006 arising out of SLP(C) No. 16418/2005 were filed 
against the final common judgment dt.15.6.2005 of the Division Bench of the 
High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos. 2807/2002 and 
2808/2002. We have also perused the judgment in these appeals and also the 
appointment order and other relevant records. The appointment order D 
appointing the respective respondents herein clearly shows that the 
respondents were appointed in the prescribed scale on temporary basis for 
the academic year ending on 31st Iv.arch, 1993 and subject to the approval 
by the Education Department. The appointment order funher states that the 
services of the temporary employees may be terminated by the management E 
at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any prior notice. 
This appointment order was issued to Y.D. Deshpande (respondent No.I in 
SLP(C) No.16412/2005). Another appointment order was issued by the 
management pursuant to the Resolution of the management in its meeting 
dt.11.08.1991. The respondent No. I in SLP(C) No.16418/2005 (S.K. Joshi) was 
appointed 'i\} Assistant Teacher in the school in question on consolidated F 
salary of Rs.400/- per month and on contract basis. The appointment order 
also further states that the appointment was upto the end of academic year 
I 0.4.1992. It is not in dispute that when the approval of the Government was 
sought the Government did not approve the appointment for the additional 
post. It is also not in dispute that the appellants' institution is run on the G 
basis of grant-in-aid by the Government. The services of the respondents 
were terminated in the year 200 I and the respondents without availing the 
alternative remedy available under the law straightway filed the Writ Petitions 
in the High Court which were allowed by the learned Single Judge and also 
on appeal by the management the same was affirmed by the Division Bench 
of the High Court. 
H 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 6 S.CR. 
A 
It is now well-settled principle of law that the appointment made on 
probation/ad hoc basis for a specific period of time comes to an end by efflux 
of time and the person holding such post can have no right to continue on 
the post. In the instant case as noticed above, the respective respondents 
hav~ accepted the appoi

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