Pramod v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Background
Pramod was the senior-most lecturer at a private aided polytechnic in Maharashtra and had served as in-charge Principal for years. Although the statutory rules require the senior-most teacher to be promoted to Principal, the Director rejected his claim in 2012 by applying the State's 2012 recruitment rules, which would fill the post by direct recruitment. Pramod was also superannuated on 31 March 2015, even though the Supreme Court had ordered status quo in his favour.
Decision Breakdown
The Court held that the 2012 State rules apply only to government polytechnics and not to a private aided polytechnic, and the State itself had confirmed this by affidavit. That left Rule 3(3) of the 1981 Rules in force, which requires the senior-most teacher to be appointed Head. Pramod met the qualifications, so the Director erred in rejecting his claim. The Court ordered his immediate reinstatement within two weeks and his appointment as Principal within four weeks, deemed effective from 1 December 2012, with full salary and benefits, and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the society. It refrained from deciding the separate question of the correct age of superannuation for teachers, because the parties' arguments on it were unclear.
Lesson Learnt
When a statute specifies how a post must be filled, an authority cannot set that rule aside by applying a set of rules meant for a different type of institution. Employers who ignore a court's status-quo order may face strict remedies, including costs.