Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh against a judgment of the High Court affirming a Single Judge's order that quashed an advertisement for the post of Project Director in the Child Labour Elimination & Rehabilitation Society. The respondent, who had been temporarily appointed to the Society, claimed her right to join the post after her services in another department were terminated. The appellants contended that the respondent was merely a temporary employee and had abandoned her position without proper sanction. The court noted that the respondent's initial appointment was not made through a proper advertisement, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that a temporary employee does not have a lien on the post and cannot claim rights to it after abandoning the position. The appeal was allowed, and the previous orders were set aside, indicating that the respondent had no right to challenge the advertisement. The court directed that if the respondent was eligible, she could apply for a fresh appointment. The decision was made on December 13, 2012.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Employment - Challenge to Advertisement - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 - The court held that the respondent's appointment was not made following the required legal procedure, violating Articles 14 and 16, thus she had no right to challenge the advertisement for the post of Project Director. (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent had a right to challenge the advertisement for the post of Project Director after her temporary employment was terminated.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Single Judge, and ruled that the respondent had no right to challenge the advertisement for the post of Project Director.
Law Points
- Constitutional Law
- Employment Law
- Temporary Employment
- Lien
- Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
