Vidyavardhaka
Sangha & Anr Vs. Y.D. Deshpande & Ors [2006] Insc 606 (21 September 2006)
Dr.Ar.Lakshmanan
& Tarun Chatterjee
(Arising
out of SLP(C) No.16412 of 2005) CIVIL APPEAL NO.4225 OF 2006 (Arising out of
SLP(C) No.16418 of 2005) VIDYAVARDHAKA SANGHA & ANR. .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J.
Leave
granted.
Heard Mr.S.N.Bhat,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mrs.K.Sarada Devi,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
Civil
Appeal No.4224/2006 arising out of SLP(C) No.16412 of 2005 and Civil Appeal
No.4225/2006 arising out of SLP(C) No.16418/2005 were filed against the final
common judgment dt.15.6.2005 of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos.2807/2002 and 2808/2002.
We have also perused the judgment in these appeals and also the appointment
order and other relevant records. The appointment order appointing the
respective respondents herein clearly show that the respondents were appointed
in the prescribed scale on temporary basis for the academic year ending on 31st
March, 1993 and subject to the approval by the Education Department. The
appointment order further states that the services of the temporary employees
may be terminated by the management at any time without assigning any reason
and without giving any prior notice. This appointment order was issued to Y.D.Deshpande
(respondent No.1 in SLP(C) No.16412/2005). Another appointment order was issued
by the management pursuant to the Resolution of the management in its meeting
dt.11.08.1991. The respondent No.1 in SLP(C) No.16418/2005 (S.K.Joshi) was
appointed as Assistant Teacher in the school in question on consolidated salary
of Rs.400/- per month and on contract basis. The appointment order also further
states that the appointment was upto the end of academic year 10.4.1992. It is
not in dispute that when the approval of the Government was sought the
Government did not approve the appointment for the additional post. It is also
not in dispute that the appellants' institution is run on the basis of
grant-in-aid by the Government. The services of the respondents were terminated
in the year 2001 and the respondents without availing the alternative remedy
available under the law straightway filed the Writ Petitions in the High Court
which were allowed by the learned Single Judge and also on appeal by the
management the same was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
It is
now well-settled principle of law that the appointment made on probation/ad hoc
basis for a specific period of time comes to an end by efflux of time and the
person holding such post can have no right to continue on the post. In the
instant case as noticed above, the respective respondents have accepted the
appointment including the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment
orders and joined the posts in question and continued on the said post for some
years. The respondents having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in
the appointment order and allowed the period for which they were appointed to
have been elapsed by efflux of time, they are not now permitted to turn their
back and say that their appointments could not be terminated on the basis of
their appointment letters nor they could be treated as temporary employee or on
contract basis. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents
to the said effect has no merit and is, therefore, liable to be rejected. It is
also well-settled law by several other decisions of this Court that appointment
on ad hoc basis/temporary basis comes to an end by efflux of time and persons
holding such post have no right to continue on the post and ask for regularisation
etc.
For
the foregoing reasons, the Civil Appeals stand allowed and the judgments passed
by the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2807/2002 and 2808/2002 and in Writ
Petitions are set aside. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
