Service law: Termination – Appointment of respondent No. 1 as temporary full time Lecturer on ad-hoc basis – Termination of services since performance was unsatisfactory – Challenge to – Tribunal and the Single Judge of the High Court upheld the termination, however the Division Bench set aside the same – On appeal, held: Order of termination of services is simpliciter without any stigma noticing that the work is not satisfactory – Appointment of respondent No. 1 was not on probation but, was on ad-hoc basis – Such temporary appointment pending filling up of a vacancy on regular basis does not confer any right at par with the candidate appointed on regular basis – Management had right to terminate the services during ad-hoc period on account of unsatisfactory work – Decision to arrive at the unsatisfactory work is motive and not the foundation of termination of services – Furthermore, the opinion of the Principal, does not contain any adverse comments but the comments in relation to the work of respondent No. 1 which cannot be made basis for setting aside the termination – Thus, the order by the Division Bench of the High Court not sustainable and is set aside – Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 – s. 59. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: It is found that the Division Bench has travelled much beyond the controversy involved in the writ petition. The appointment of respondent No. 1 is categorically on ad-hoc basis till such time full time Lecturer is appointed. The order of termination of services is simpliciter without any stigma noticing that the work is not satisfactory. The appointment of respondent No. 1 was not on probation but, it was purely ad-hoc appointment and the Management has kept right to terminate the services during ad-hoc period on account of unsatisfactory work. The temporary appointment pending filling up of a vacancy on regular basis does not confer any right at par with the candidate appointed on regular basis. The appointment of the respondent No.1 was not on probation as there is no such condition in the letter of appointment. The services of an employee can be dispensed with on account of unsatisfactory work. The decision to arrive at the unsatisfactory work is motive and not the foundation of termination of services. The opinion of the Principal, which does not contain any adverse comments but the comments are in relation to the work of the respondent No. 1, such comments cannot be made basis for setting aside the termination of an adhoc employee. The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is clearly unsustainable in law. The same is set aside. [Para 9, 13, 15][721-E; 724-C-D, G]
Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (1999) 2 SCC 21 : [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 558; Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences & Anr. (2002) 1 SCC
520 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 41; Rajesh Kohli v. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC
783 : [2010] 11 SCR 699; Wainganga Bahu-uddeshiya & Ors. v. Diwakar & Ors. Wainganga 2012 SCC
OnLine Bom 1414; Bahu-uddeshiya Vikas Sanstha & Ors. v. Anil & Ors. 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1233 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.