Holding

An ad‑hoc lecturer who has not been confirmed to any post under the rules and who fails to report for duty cannot be deemed a regular lecturer, and the refusal to allow his joining does not amount to dismissal, so no direction for appointment can be issued.

Summary

The appellant was initially appointed as an ad‑hoc lecturer in a college that lacked sufficient students, and was transferred to another college where he was directed to report for duty. Instead of reporting, he demanded a regular appointment, which was refused, and he obtained a tribunal order directing his regular appointment. By the time he sought to join, the college had already filled the vacancy and informed him not to report. The Supreme Court held that until an employee is confirmed to a post under the applicable rules, he cannot be deemed a regular lecturer, and his failure to report for duty makes him responsible for losing the right to the post; the refusal to allow him to join does not constitute dismissal, and no direction for appointment can be issued. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether an ad‑hoc lecturer who has served more than two years as a temporary reserve lecturer is deemed a regular lecturer under government policy.
Whether the refusal of the college to allow the appellant to join duty amounts to dismissal without enquiry.
Whether a tribunal order directing regular appointment can compel a college to take the appellant on duty when the post is already filled.
Whether the college is obligated to provide a regular appointment to the appellant after his transfer.

Subjects

service lawad hoc appointmentregular appointmenttransfer of staffdismissaltribunal orderlecturerappointment enquirywrit jurisdiction

Judgment

B.D. JADHAVAR A
v.
K.D. BHAGWAN AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 1, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Service Law:

Ad hoc appointment as Lecturer-College not having requisite number
of students so as to allow continuance of appointment-Consequential trans- C
fer to another college-lnstead of rep01ting for duty ad hoc appointee seeking
regular appointment-Decline of such request-Obtaining order for regular
appointment from Tribunal-In the meanwhile college making regular ap-
pointment-As a result college not in a position to take the adhoc appointee
on duty-Held in such circumstances no direction can be issued for appoint- D
me!Jl of the ad hoc appointee.

The appellant was appointed as an ad hoc lecturer in the first
respondent-college. Since the college did not have the requisite number of
students to allow him to continue on that post, it requested the Director
of Education to transfer the appellant to some other college. Accordingly E
he was transferred to the third respondent-college and was directed to
report himself for duty. However, instead of reporting for duty he asked
for a letter of appointment as a regular teacher which was declined.
Thereafter the appellant obtained an order from the Tribunal for appoint·
ment as a permanent teacher. Since in the meanwhile a lecturer had F
already been appointed the third respondent-College was not in a position
to take the appellant on duty. Thereafter, the appellant unsuccessfully
invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that (1)
since by virtue of the policy of the Government, the appellant had put in G
more than two years' service as temporary lecturer, he must be deemed to
be a regular lecturer; having been appointed as a lecturer in the first
respondent-college he must he deemed to be a regular lecturer in that
college; (ii) the omission to take him on duty amounts to dismissal without.
enquiry. H
265
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS' 11995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : In the circumstances of the case the appellant himself is
responsible to lose his right to the post of lecturer. Until he is confirmed
to any post according to rules, he cannot claim the status as a regularly
appointed lecturer. The question of holding enquiry does not arise nor the
B refusal to allow joining amounts to dismissal. Therefore, it is diflicult to
give direction to consider him for appointment. [267-H; 268-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal No. 8380 of
1995.
c From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.93 of the Bombay High
Court in W,P. No. 426 of 1985.

V.M. Tarkunde and Ms. M. Karanjawala for the Appellant.

D S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

E We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though the
appellant was initially appointed as an ad hoc lecturer in the first respon-
dent-College which had not had the requisite students to allow the appel-
lant to continue on that post, they had written to the Director of Higher
Education to have him transferred to any other college. Consequently, the
Director of Higher Education had written to the Principal of the first
F respondent-College to have him relieved so that he should be posted and
instructed the third respondent-College where there was a vacancy, to have
him joined therein. Accordingly, on July 14, 1985, the Principal of third
respondent-College had agreed to and the appellant was directed to
report for duty immediately in the third respondent-College. Unfortunate-
G ly, instead of reporting himself for duty, he went to the College, asked them
to give him the letter of appointment as permanent teacher. Since they did
not give letter of appointment, he went to the Tribunal and obtained an
order to have him posted as regular lecturer. By that time six months time
had lapsed. Then he wrote a letter on January 28, 1985 requesting the third
H responde.nt to take him back on duty; a telegram was sent by the third
B. D. JADHAVAR v. K. D. BHAGWAN 267

respondent informing the appellant that he need not come for joining the A
duty. Then he filed the writ petition in the High Court. The High Court by
its order dated August 30, 1993 in C.W.P. No. 426 of 1985 dismissed the
writ petition. Thus this appeal by special leave.

Shri V.M. Tarkunde, the learned senior counsel appearing for the B
appellant, contended that since by virtue of the policy of the Government,
the appellant had put in more than two years' service as temporary reserve
lecturer, he must be deemed to be a regular Lecturer and he having been
appointed as a lecturer in the first respondent-College, must be deemed to
be a regular-lecturer in that college. He cannot be transferred elsewhere,
but having. been posted and gone to report to the third-respondent, he was
c
not taken on duty. He cannot be kept in vacuum and he has lawful right
to continue as a lecturer in first respondent-College. The omission to take
him on duty amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his right to post to which
he is entitled thus amounts to dismissal without enquiry.
D
Shri S.V. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the first and
second respondents, contended that though initially the appellant was
appointed as temporary lecturer in the first ·respondent-College, since the
College did not have the requisite students to be taught English, they had
written to the Director, Higher Education to accommodate the appellant E
in an appropriate College. Accordingly, he was relieved from the first
respondent-College. Therefore, it bears no obligation to take the appellant
to a non-existent post.

It would appear that the appellant was kept in List I of the ad hoc
F
teacher awaiting regular appointment after confirmation. Though he was
appointed i'1itially on ad hoc basis, there is no order of appointment
confirming him on any post. When he was transferred and posted to the
third respond.;m- College where he was directed to join duty, unfortunate-
ly, instead of reporting for the duty, he insisted for his appointment letter G
- .... as regular lecturer which was rightly declined. Consequently, he ap-
proached the Tribunal and came back with order in his hands to report
for duty, by which time they already had a lecturer in that college. Under
these circumstances, the third respondent-College was not in a position to
~~oo~ H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Accordingly, the appellant himse1f is responsible to lose his right to
the post of lecturer. Until he is confirmed to any post according to rules,
he cannot claim the status as a regularly appointed lecturer. The question
of holding enquiry does not arise nor the refusal to allow joining amounts
to dismissal. It will be difficult, in these circumstances, to give direction to
B consider him for appointment.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.