Case Note & Summary
The appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition in a service dispute concerning an ad hoc lecturer in a college. The appellant had been initially appointed as an ad hoc lecturer in the first respondent college, which lacked sufficient students to continue his post. The management wrote to the Director of Higher Education to transfer him; the Director instructed the first respondent college to relieve him and directed the third respondent college, where a vacancy existed, to take him. On July 14, 1985, the Principal of the third respondent college agreed and the appellant was directed to report for duty immediately. Instead of reporting, the appellant asked for a letter of appointment as permanent teacher; when that was refused, he approached the Tribunal and obtained an order to be posted as regular lecturer. By that time six months had lapsed. He then wrote a letter on January 28, 1985 requesting the third respondent to take him back on duty; the third respondent sent a telegram informing him he need not come. He filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on August 30, 1993. Hence the appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the appellant, having put in more than two years' temporary service under government policy, should be deemed a regular lecturer; whether the refusal by the third respondent college to allow him to join duty after delay amounted to arbitrary deprivation and dismissal without enquiry; and whether he was entitled to continue in the first respondent college despite being relieved. The appellant contended that his two years' temporary reserve service entitled him to deemed regular status and that the omission to take him on duty was arbitrary deprivation of a lawful right, amounting to dismissal without enquiry. The respondents argued that the first respondent college had no post due to lack of students, he was properly relieved and posted to the third respondent college; his insistence on an appointment letter instead of reporting was unjustified, and by the time he reported with the Tribunal order the vacancy was filled, so he lost his right; no confirmation order existed, and no enquiry was required. The Supreme Court found that the appellant was initially appointed on ad hoc basis and there was no order of appointment confirming him on any post. He was transferred and directed to join the third respondent college, but instead of reporting for duty immediately, he insisted on a regular appointment letter. By the time he returned with the Tribunal's order, six months had passed and the third respondent already had a lecturer. The Court held that the appellant himself was responsible for losing his right to the post. Until he is confirmed according to rules, he cannot claim the status of a regularly appointed lecturer. The question of holding an enquiry does not arise, nor does refusal to allow joining amount to dismissal. It would be difficult to direct consideration for appointment. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Ad hoc/Temporary Lecturer - Government policy/temporary service does not confer deemed regular status absent confirmation order - An ad hoc lecturer who served more than two years as temporary reserve lecturer under government policy claimed deemed regularisation as a lecturer in the first respondent college. The Supreme Court held that until he is confirmed to any post according to rules, he cannot claim the status as a regularly appointed lecturer; no order of appointment confirming him on any post was produced. Held that temporary service alone does not create a right to regular post. B) Service Law - Transfer and Joining Duty - Failure to report for duty after posting and insistence on appointment letter constitutes abandonment/loss of right; college not obligated to take him after vacancy filled - The appellant was transferred and directed to report for duty immediately in the third respondent college, but instead of reporting, he insisted on a letter of appointment as permanent teacher. After six months had lapsed and the vacancy was filled, he sought to join. Held that the appellant himself was responsible to lose his right to the post of lecturer; the third respondent college was not in a position to take him on duty. C) Service Law - Dismissal and Enquiry - Refusal to allow joining after lapse of time due to own conduct does not amount to dismissal or require enquiry - The omission to take the appellant on duty was argued to be arbitrary deprivation and dismissal without enquiry. Held that the question of holding enquiry does not arise nor does the refusal to allow joining amount to dismissal; it would be difficult to give direction to consider him for appointment.
Issue of Consideration
Whether an ad hoc lecturer who served more than two years as temporary reserve lecturer under government policy is deemed to be a regular lecturer; whether refusal by a college to allow him to join duty after delay amounts to arbitrary deprivation of right to post and dismissal without enquiry; whether he is entitled to continue in the first respondent college despite being relieved.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant was not entitled to any direction for appointment; until confirmed according to rules, he cannot claim regular status; no enquiry was required; the appellant himself was responsible for losing his right to the post.
Law Points
- Ad hoc lecturer not confirmed under rules cannot claim regular status
- temporary service under government policy does not confer deemed regularisation
- failure to report for duty after posting results in loss of right
- refusal to allow joining after delay not dismissal
- no enquiry required when no confirmation order exists
