Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the termination of the respondent's service as Secretary of the Zila Sainik Board, appointed on a contractual basis by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent's initial appointment was made on 20th August 1979 for a specified term, which was extended several times, ultimately expiring on 30th August 1985. Following the termination of his service on 29th March 1985, the respondent filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the termination. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent on 24th March 1988, declaring the termination invalid and entitling him to salary until the end of his contractual term. Dissatisfied, the respondent filed a review petition claiming reinstatement based on an interim order from July 1986, which the High Court granted on 26th July 1988. The State appealed this decision. The Supreme Court held that the respondent's appointment was strictly contractual, and he had no right to continue beyond the specified term without a further extension. The interim order did not confer a right to reinstatement irrespective of the merits of the case. The Court set aside the High Court's review order and restored the original judgment, affirming that the respondent was entitled only to salary until 30th August 1985, and clarified that the High Court's earlier judgment allowed for consideration of future employment but did not guarantee reinstatement. The appeal was allowed without costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Contractual Appointment - Validity of Termination - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The respondent's appointment was contractual and valid until 30th August, 1985, with no extension sanctioned thereafter. The High Court's order reinstating the respondent based on an interim order was unsustainable as it did not control the jurisdiction to decide the writ petition on merits. Held that the respondent was entitled to salary only until the specified date (Paras 242-245).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent had a right to continue in service beyond the specified term of appointment and the effect of the interim order on the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's review order, and restored the judgment declaring the respondent entitled only to salary until 30th August 1985.
Law Points
- Contractual appointment
- termination of service
- interim orders
- jurisdiction of High Court
- review petitions
