Supreme Court of India

LOKSHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANR.versusRAJENDRA KUMAR AJABRAO MAHALLE AND ORS.

Citation: 1997 INSC 479
Decided: 5 May 1997
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYD P WADHWA

Holding

The Tribunal's order of termination was illegal and the High Court's vacatur of the stay was set aside, with the appropriate relief being a stay of the Tribunal order pending the writ petition.

Summary

The respondent was appointed by the Maharashtra Education Department for a one‑year term ending with an automatic termination clause. No appointment was made for the following year because the State Government did not sanction any grant‑in‑aid positions. The respondent appealed to the Tribunal for continuation of service; the Tribunal held that the termination was illegal, stating that the appointment was against a permanent vacancy and the headmaster lacked authority to terminate. The State filed a writ petition seeking suspension of the Tribunal's order, and the High Court vacated the stay. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's finding was unwarranted and that the proper relief was a stay of the Tribunal order pending disposal of the writ petition, setting aside the High Court order. The appeal was allowed and the High Court was directed to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously.

Issues considered

Whether the termination clause in a fixed‑term appointment is valid under service law
Whether the headmaster had authority to terminate the appointment
Whether the High Court was correct in vacating the stay of the Tribunal's order

Subjects

appointment for fixed periodtermination clauseservice lawtribunal jurisdictionwrit petitionstay of ordereducation department

Judgment

            LOKSHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANR.                                  A
                                         v.
         RAJENDRA KUMAR AJABRAO MAHALLE AND ORS.

                                  MAY 5, 1997

               [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]                                B

         Constitution of India, 1950 :

       Alticle 226-Writ petition-Stay of impugned orde,-..Education Depmt-
ment of State of Maharashtra-Appointment given for one academic session           C
specifically mentioning in the letter of appointment that at the end of the
session, services would stand tenninated without notice-Infollowing year no
appointments made-Appellant approaching Tlibunal for continuation of
service-Tribunal held tennination illegal-Wlit petition by State-High Coult
vacated the order of sttIJHeld, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is clearly
unwan-anted-The case was clearly for the stay of order of the Tribunal            D
pending disposal of writ petition-Order of High Coult set aside-Writ petition
to be di;posed of expeditiously-:-Service Law-Appointment for fixed period.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civii Appeal No. 3619 of
1997.
                                                                                  E
     From the .Judgment and Order dated 19.2.97 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 3520 of 1995.

         A.K. Sanghi for the Appellants.

         V.A. Mohta, Pramit Saxena and S.V. Deshpande for the Respon-             F
dents.

         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides.
                                                                                  G
     This appeal by special leave arises from the interim order passed by
the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, made on February 19, 1997 in
Writ Petition No. 3520/95.

      The respondent was appointed on July 9, 1992 for a period of one
year. The appointment order read as under :                            H
                                         89
    90                   SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1997]SUPP.1S.C.R.

A           "Your appointment is purely temporary for a period of one year
            from 9.7.92 to end of Session, in the leave/deputation/vacancy.
            After expiry of the above period your services shall stand ter-
            minated without any notice."

         Subsequently, no appointment was given to the respondent as indi-
B cated in the order of the Division Deputy Director of Education (Genl.),
    dated May 19, 1994 sent on May 21, 1995 which reads as under :

            "That due to refusal of sanction and provisions from the State
            Government for the year 1993-94, no sanction was granted for any
            class on grant-in-aid basis.· Information to all Heads of Schools
c           should be sent through Deputy Director of Education, Education
            Officer (Secondary) and Education Inspectors, Bombay."

        Thus, it could be seen that for the year 1993-94, no appointment
  came to be made. The respondent filed an appeal in the Tribunal for
D directions. The Tribunal held that he had been appointed against a per-
  manent vacancy and the Head Master had no authority to pass an order
  of termination. In the face of the appointment order, such finding recorded
  by the Tribunal is clearly unwarranted. When a writ petition was filed
  seeking suspension of the order, the High Court vacated the order of stay
  made in the impugned order. In the aforestated facts, the case was clearly
E for the stay of Tribunal order pending disposal of the writ petition.
          The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court
    stands set aside. The High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition
    as expeditiously as possible. No costs.

F R.P.                                                          Appeal allowed.




                                                                                    /,
                                                                                    >..




                                                                                    \

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "appointment for fixed period"Sign in to search