IMPORTANT POINTS
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.
Invocation of Article 14 for quashing order of termination in absence of challenge to validity of Act or allegations of mala fides or arbitrariness would not be justified.

Headnote:(a) Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – Section 5 – Respondent No.1 temporarily appointed as Lecturer for one Session in the first instance, appointment coming to an end by afflux of time – Appointed afresh second time – Period extended up to 30.04.1998 – Post was a part-time post – Appointment approved by competent authority without adding any more rights – Held, respondent’s appointment since inception remaining a “temporary appointment as part-time lecturer” for a fixed period – Not resulting in “permanent appointment” on the post of Lecturer – Also not creating any right in favour of respondent No. 1 for claiming regularization in service. (Para 25, 27)
       (1997) 5 SCC 152 – Relied upon
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – High Court holding that respondent’s appointment was against permanent vacancy and he was appointed permanently – No material to reach that conclusion – High Court neither taking note of provisions of the Act nor examining the question in the light of the law laid down in Hindustan Education Society’s Case – Not sustainable. (Para 28)
       (1997) 5 SCC 152 – Relied upon
       (c) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – 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. (Para 29)
       (d) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Invocation of Article 14 for quashing order of termination in absence of challenge to validity of Act or allegations of mala fides or arbitrariness – Not justified. (Para 29)
       Facts of the case:
       Pragati Mahila Mahavidyalaya (appellant No.2) is a girls college run by appellant No. 1, which is a registered trust/society at Bhandara.
       The respondent No.1 was given appointment for the post of Lecturer in Geography as part-time Lecturer. The appointment was temporary. It was for a fixed period from 01.08.1996 to 30.04.1997. It came to an end by efflux of time.
       In the Academic Session 1997-1998, respondent No. 1 was appointed as part-time Lecturer in Geography on temporary basis upto 30.04.1998. On 21.03.1998, the Nagpur University (respondent No.2) granted approval to the appointment of respondent No.1 as a part-time Lecturer.
       The respondent No.1 also made a complaint to the Grievance Committee of the University to the effect that he was appointed as full-time Lecturer. However, the services of respondent No.1 were terminated w.e.f. 30.04.1998.
       The University and College Tribunal, Nagpur (“the Tribunal”) dismissed the appeal and upheld the termination order.
       The High Court partly allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of Tribunal and in consequence also set aside the termination order. The High Court further directed the Management to reinstate the respondent No.1 in services but without payment of any back wages to the respondent No.1.
       Finding of the Court:
       View taken by the High Court is not legally sustainable.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 01.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 2374 of 1999 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein and set aside the order dated 05.08.1998 passed by the College Tribunal, Nagpur University, Nagpur in Appeal No. N-10 of 1998 and quashed the termination order dated 31.03.1998 issued by appellant No.1 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.1 on the post of Lecturer but without payment of any back wages to him.

3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention in brief to appreciate the short controversy involved in the appeal. The facts are taken from the SLP.

4. Pragati Mahila Mahavidyalaya (appellant No.2 herein) is a girls college at Bhandara, Maharashtra. It is run by appellant No. 1, which is a registered trust/society at Bhandara. The appellant No. 2 published an advertisement on 23.06.1996 inviting application for the posts of Lecturers. The respondent No.1 was selected and was accordingly given appointment for the post of Lecturer in Geography as part-time Lecturer vide appointment order dated 20.07.1996. The appointment was temporary. It was for a fixed period from 01.08.1996 to 30.04.1997. It came to an end by efflux of time. In the Academic Session 1997-1998, another advertisement was issued and vide appointment order dated 21.07.1997, respondent No. 1 was appointed as part-time Lecturer in Geography on temporary basis upto 30.04.1998. On 21.03.1998, the Nagpur University (respondent No.2 herein) granted approval to the appointment of respondent No.1 as a part-time Lecturer.

5. According to the respondent No.1, he was appointed as full-time Lecturer. The respondent No.1 also made a complaint to the Grievance Committee of the University to this effect. However, vide order dated 31.03.1998 (Ann. 5), the services of respondent No.1 were terminated w.e.f. 30.04.1998.

6. Challenging the order of termination, respondent No.1 filed an appeal being Appeal No. N-10 of 1998 before the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur (in short “the Tribunal”) under Section 59 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994. By order dated 05.08.1998, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the termination order. It was held that the respondent No.1 was not appointed on a regular basis but his appointment was only on temporary/ad-hoc basis and it was for a specified term as a part-time Lecturer.

7. The respondent No.1, felt aggrieved, filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 2374 of 1999 before the High Court praying for setting aside of the order of Tribunal dated 05.08.1998 passed in Appeal No. N-10 of 1998. The High Court vide order dated 16.12.2008 partly allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of Tribunal dated 05.08.1998 and in consequence also set aside the termination order dated 31.03.1998. The High Court further directed the Management to reinstate the respondent No.1 in services but without payment of any back wages to the respondent No.1.

8. Challenging the said order, the College filed an appeal being L.P.A. No. 26 of 2009 before the Division Bench of the High Court.

9. By order dated 23.06.2009, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal and remanded the matter to the Single Judge of the High Court for deciding it afresh on merits.

10. After remand, the writ petition was restored to its original number, i.e. W.P. No. 2374 of 1999. It was, however, dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 08.07.2010.

11. Thereafter an application being Civil Application No. 149 of 2010 was filed by respondent No.1 for restoration of the writ petition. It was also dismissed in default on 08.04.2011.

12. In 2012, the respondent No.1 filed another application for restoration

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 560

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAJ. CHELAMESWAR, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.Pragati Mahila Samaj & Anr. – AppellantsVERSUS Arun & Ors. – RespondentsCIVIL APPEAL No. 6498 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 30834/2014)Decided On : 19-07-2016

Cases Referred (1)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. CHELAMESWAR, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Pragati Mahila Samaj & Anr. – Appellants
VERSUS
Arun & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL No. 6498 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 30834/2014)
Decided On : 19-07-2016