Pragati Mahila Samaj & Anr. v. Arun & Ors.
Background
The respondent was engaged as a part-time, temporary Lecturer in Geography at a girls' college in Bhandara, Maharashtra, under two successive fixed-term appointment orders (1996-97 and 1997-98), and his services were terminated on expiry of the second term. He challenged the termination before the University/College Tribunal, which upheld it, but the High Court (after a remand and a long procedural history of restorations) eventually quashed the termination and ordered his reinstatement (without back wages), holding he had effectively become a permanent appointee.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to consider the governing statute, Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and the binding precedent in Hindustan Education Society vs. Sk. Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi (1997) 5 SCC 152, which deals with an identical factual scenario. Applying that precedent, the Court found that both appointment letters explicitly described the post as temporary and for a fixed term, and that a permanent vacancy under the Act can only be filled through the specific procedure in Section 5(1)-(2), which was never followed here. Since the respondent could not show he was appointed to a permanent vacancy through that procedure, and had not challenged the law itself or shown mala fides/arbitrariness, the High Court's finding of permanency was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the Tribunal's order upholding the termination was restored.
Lesson Learnt
A temporary, fixed-term appointment, even if renewed once or twice and even if the employee was selected through interview, does not automatically ripen into a permanent position; permanency under statutes like this one can only arise through the specific statutory procedure for filling permanent vacancies, not merely through the passage of time or repeated renewal.