Bombay High Court Quashes Reinstatement of Temporary Employee in Service Matter. Temporary Teacher Appointed for Reserved Post for One Academic Year Was Not Entitled to Continuation Beyond Stipulated Period, and School Tribunal's Order Reinstating Her Was Set Aside.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 9
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from the termination of a temporary lecturer and the subsequent challenge to the School Tribunal's order of reinstatement. The petitioner, Kalyan Citizens Education Society, runs a junior college at Kalyan in Thane district. For the academic year 1990-91, the college had advertised for a reserved post of teacher, seeking applications from candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and Nomadic Tribe categories. Although a suitable reserved category candidate was selected, he did not accept the appointment. Since the time to re-advertise the post was short, the college appointed respondent no.1, Miss Sunita Vilas Funde, who had also applied, as a lecturer in physics against the reserved post purely on a temporary, stop-gap basis. The appointment letter dated 24 July 1990 expressly stated that her appointment was purely temporary for the academic year 1990-91, ending on 20 April 1991. Later, the college issued a fresh advertisement for the lecturer post. After selecting a suitable candidate, the college informed respondent no.1 by notice dated 14 March 1991 that her services would not be required beyond 20 April 1991, though she would receive vacation salary. Aggrieved, respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, which held that the termination was illegal. The Tribunal set aside the termination notice and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages, to be complied within 40 days. The employer then preferred a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, contending that the appointment was temporary, for a fixed term, and the termination was strictly in terms of the contract. The petitioner also highlighted that respondent no.1 was an OBC candidate, not from the reserved category for which the post was originally advertised, and that the Selection Committee had found her unsuitable for the reserved post when her application was considered. The petitioner argued that the tribunal had committed a patent error in law by ordering reinstatement of a temporary employee. The High Court, after considering the submissions, observed that the appointment letter unmistakably stipulated the temporary nature and duration of the employment. It held that a temporary appointee has no right to continue beyond the stipulated period, and termination in accordance with the appointment letter was valid. The court noted that the respondent's appointment was a purely temporary stop-gap arrangement for a specific academic session, and she had no legitimate expectation of continuance. The tribunal, therefore, could not have ordered reinstatement or backwages. Finding merit in the writ petition, the court set aside the tribunal's order, made the writ petition absolute, and imposed no costs. Thus, the High Court reiterated that a temporary employee cannot seek reinstatement once the contractual period expires and the termination is in terms of the appointment letter.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Termination of Temporary Service - Temporary Appointment Confers No Right to Continuance Beyond Stipulated Period - Not mentioned - Respondent No.1 was appointed as a temporary lecturer for the academic year 1990-91 and her services were terminated in accordance with the appointment letter. The School Tribunal had wrongly set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement with backwages. The High Court held that since the appointment was purely temporary and the termination was in terms of the contract, the tribunal's order was illegal and set it aside. (Paras 1-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the School Tribunal was justified in setting aside the termination of a purely temporary employee and ordering reinstatement with backwages

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ Petition allowed; School Tribunal's order set aside; no order as to costs

Law Points

  • A temporary appointee has no right to continue in service beyond the stipulated period
  • termination of a temporary employee in accordance with the terms of appointment is legal
  • reinstatement cannot be ordered when appointment was purely temporary
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 258

Writ Petition No.2652 of 1991

2005-08-12

Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.

Mr. L.M. Nerlekar, Mr. Neel Helkar, Mr. R.S. Apte

Kalyan Citizens Education Society

Miss Sunita Vilas Funde, State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging the order of the School Tribunal reinstating a temporary employee

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought setting aside of School Tribunal's order granting reinstatement and backwages to respondent no.1

Filing Reason

The School Tribunal had set aside the termination of a temporary employee and ordered reinstatement with backwages, which the petitioner contended was illegal as the appointment was purely temporary and terminated as per the appointment letter

Previous Decisions

The School Tribunal had allowed the appeal of respondent no.1, set aside the termination notice dated 14.3.1991, and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages

Issues

Whether the School Tribunal correctly ordered reinstatement of a purely temporary employee whose services were terminated as per the appointment letter

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner contended that the appointment was purely temporary for the academic year 1990-91 and the termination was in accordance with the appointment letter, thus the School Tribunal erred in ordering reinstatement and backwages. The respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, contending that her termination was illegal and sought reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi

A temporary appointee has no right to continue in service beyond the period stipulated in the appointment letter, and termination in accordance therewith is legal; the School Tribunal cannot order reinstatement and backwages in such a case.

Judgment Excerpts

The appointment letter issued to her on 24.7.1990 clearly stipulates that the appointment was purely temporary for the academic year 1990-91 upto 20.4.1991. In such circumstances, the order of the School Tribunal is set aside.

Procedural History

Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the School Tribunal against termination. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the termination, and ordered reinstatement with continuity and backwages. The petitioner challenged this order by way of the present writ petition.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Reinstatement of Temporary Employee in Service Matter. Temporary Teacher Appointed for Reserved Post for One Academic Year Was Not Entitled to Continuation Beyond Stipulated Period, and School Tribunal's Order Reinstating He...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay Enhances Sentence for Cheque Dishonour Offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Court Rules That Flee-Bite Sentence Defeats Purpose of Enactment When Cheque Amount Remains Unpaid, and Enhances Fine to En...