Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, seven individuals employed as Assistant Professors and Lecturers at Shri Bhagwan College of Pharmacy, Aurangabad, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging their termination from service. They were appointed on a temporary/ad hoc basis for the academic year 2012-2013 without following any regular recruitment process. After the academic year ended, their services were terminated. The petitioners contended that their termination was illegal and arbitrary, and sought reinstatement with continuity of service and regularisation. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), the Pharmacy Council of India, the University, and the College management, opposed the petition, arguing that the appointments were purely temporary and contractual, and that the petitioners had no right to continue beyond the agreed term. The court examined the terms of appointment letters, which clearly stated that the appointments were temporary and could be terminated at any time. The court held that temporary employees have no right to regularisation or to continue in service beyond the period of their appointment. The termination was not retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it was on the expiry of the term. The court further held that a writ of mandamus for reinstatement is not maintainable for enforcement of a contract of personal service, especially when no statutory rules govern the service conditions. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to vacate the premises if they were still in occupation. The court also noted that the petitioners had not challenged the termination orders before any other forum.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Temporary/Ad Hoc Appointment - Termination - Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors/Lecturers on temporary basis without following regular recruitment procedure - Their services were terminated after the academic year - Held that temporary employees have no right to continue beyond the term of appointment and no right to regularisation (Paras 5-10). B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(oo) - Retrenchment - Termination of a temporary employee on expiry of the term is not retrenchment - Held that the termination was not illegal as it was in accordance with the terms of appointment (Paras 11-12). C) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Enforcement of contract of personal service - Writ petition for reinstatement is not maintainable when the appointment was purely temporary and no statutory rules govern the service - Held that the petitioners have no enforceable right to reinstatement (Paras 13-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioners, who were appointed on temporary/ad hoc basis as teaching staff in a private pharmacy college, was illegal and whether they are entitled to reinstatement and regularisation.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Petitioners directed to vacate premises if still in occupation.
Law Points
- Temporary employees have no right to regularisation
- Ad hoc appointments do not confer right to continue
- Termination of temporary employee is not retrenchment under Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Writ petition not maintainable for enforcement of contract of personal service
