Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Ad-Hoc Lecturer: No Right to Regular Appointment

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 9, 2019, addressed a significant dispute concerning the termination of an ad-hoc lecturer and whether such an employee had a right to claim regular appointment. The case, Wainganga Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha v. Ku. Jaya & Ors., revolved around the termination of a lecturer appointed on a temporary basis in a private college.

The Court ruled that an ad-hoc appointee does not acquire a right to regular appointment and that termination based on unsatisfactory performance does not constitute a punitive dismissal. The ruling reinforced the principle that employees engaged on an ad-hoc basis cannot claim parity with regular employees.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when the respondent, Ku. Jaya, was appointed as a lecturer in Home Economics on an ad-hoc basis in Rajiv Gandhi Mahavidyalaya, Sadak Arjuni, run by the Wainganga Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha. The appointment letter, dated February 24, 1999, clearly stated that her tenure would last until a full-time lecturer was appointed. It also included a clause stating that if her performance was found unsatisfactory, her services could be terminated without notice.

The respondent’s services were terminated on February 20, 2001, on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance. She challenged this decision before the College Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, which upheld her termination. Dissatisfied, she approached the Bombay High Court, where a Division Bench ruled in her favor and set aside the termination.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Wainganga Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha)

The petitioners, represented by their counsel, argued:

• Ad-hoc Appointment Does Not Confer Rights: The respondent was appointed on a temporary basis pending the appointment of a full-time lecturer.
• Termination Was Not Punitive: The order of termination was based on her unsatisfactory work and did not amount to punishment.
• Judicial Overreach: The High Court’s Division Bench exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering in an employment matter where the terms of service were clearly defined.

Respondent’s Arguments (Ku. Jaya)

The respondent contended:

• Termination Was Arbitrary: The decision was taken without affording her an opportunity to improve her performance.
• De Facto Probationary Status: Since she had served for two years, she should have been treated as a probationer, with a right to continue if her performance was satisfactory.
• High Court’s Ruling Was Justified: The High Court correctly found that her termination was stigmatic and not merely based on administrative convenience.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the case in light of established legal precedents and made the following key observations:

1. Ad-hoc Employees Have No Right to Regular Appointment

The Court held that ad-hoc appointees cannot claim the same rights as permanent employees:

“The appointment of respondent No. 1 was not on probation but purely ad-hoc, and the management retained the right to terminate services during the ad-hoc period.”

2. Termination Was Not Punitive

The Court cited precedents, including Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., to establish that termination based on unsatisfactory work does not amount to punitive dismissal. It observed:

“The decision to terminate based on work performance is a motive and not the foundation of termination.”

3. Precedents on Temporary Appointments

The Court referred to Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences, stating:

“Termination of a probationer or temporary employee due to unsatisfactory work cannot be considered punitive unless it follows a full-fledged inquiry and findings of misconduct.”

4. High Court’s Overreach

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s ruling, stating:

“The Division Bench traveled beyond the controversy and misinterpreted the nature of employment.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s ruling. It held that:

• The respondent’s termination was valid and in accordance with the terms of her appointment.
• Ad-hoc employees do not have a right to regularization.
• The High Court erred in treating the termination as punitive.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has far-reaching implications for employment law and ad-hoc appointments:

• Reaffirming Employer Rights: Institutions have the right to terminate temporary employees based on performance.
• Preventing Unwarranted Regularization: The judgment prevents temporary employees from claiming regularization through litigation.
• Guidance for Future Cases: The ruling sets a clear precedent for cases involving temporary or contractual employment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Wainganga Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha v. Ku. Jaya reaffirms the principle that ad-hoc appointments do not confer regular employment rights. The judgment ensures that termination based on unsatisfactory work performance remains a valid administrative decision, preventing undue interference by courts in employment matters.

By upholding the employer’s right to terminate an ad-hoc employee, the ruling safeguards institutional autonomy and clarifies the legal position on temporary employment.

Petitioner Name: Wainganga Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha.
Respondent Name: Ku. Jaya & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 09-08-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Wainganga Bahuuddesh vs Ku. Jaya & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-08-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Contractual Employment
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category