Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha & Anr. v. Dilip Ganpatrao Lanjewar & Anr.
Background
A teacher was appointed for a fixed 10-month term in 1990-91, then re-appointed for another 10-month term after a two-month summer break, before being discontinued from service in 1992. He challenged his discontinuance before the School Tribunal, which held it illegal and ordered his reinstatement with full consequential benefits. The Management's challenges to that order, first in a High Court writ petition and then in an intra-court appeal, were both dismissed, leading the Management to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Management relied on an earlier Supreme Court ruling (Hindustan Education Society v. S.K. Kaleem, 1997) to argue that a teacher who accepts a fixed-term appointment cannot claim continued employment. The Court rejected this, agreeing with the High Court that the precedent did not apply because it was undisputed that the teacher's appointment was actually against a permanent vacancy, not merely a genuine fixed-term post. Noting that the teacher had been out of service since 1992 and would otherwise superannuate only in 2019, the Court disposed of the appeal by vacating its earlier interim order and directing immediate reinstatement with full continuity of service and all benefits, but, balancing the long period out of work, denied him backwages for the period he had not actually worked.
Lesson Learnt
An employer cannot defeat a teacher's (or any employee's) right to continued employment merely by labelling repeated short-term appointments as "fixed-term" if the underlying position was in fact a permanent vacancy, but a long-delayed reinstatement may come with full service continuity while still denying back pay for the unworked period.