State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Anita & Anr Etc.
Background
The Maharashtra Government, by Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006, created 471 posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors under the Director General of Police/Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai, to be filled purely on a contractual basis (initial term of 11 months, renewable up to three terms, on consolidated pay with no entitlement to permanent-service benefits). The respondents, appointed on this contractual basis and whose terms expired after the maximum renewals, challenged the contractual conditions before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which struck down the relevant clauses as arbitrary (though without directing regularisation). On further writ petitions by both sides, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) held the 471 posts to be permanent in nature, prompting the State's appeal to the Supreme Court. This judgment disposed of the lead appeal (SLP 34788-34789/2012, Diary No. 32974/2012) together with twenty connected appeals arising from materially identical facts.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the Government Resolutions and the specific appointment agreements signed by the respondents unambiguously fixed their appointments as purely contractual, capped at three successive 11-month terms, with an express clause that they would not acquire any right to permanent service. The Court held the respondents, having accepted appointment on these contractual terms, were estopped from later challenging those very terms. It further held that mere creation of posts for administrative/budgetary purposes does not convert contractual appointments into permanent ones, and that courts should not interfere with a government's policy decision to engage personnel on a contractual basis. Finding that the High Court had failed to properly consider the Resolutions and the agreements, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the lead appeal, and consequently allowed all the connected appeals in the batch as well.
Lesson Learnt
An employee who knowingly accepts a fixed-term contractual appointment, with an explicit clause disclaiming any right to permanent status, cannot later claim regularisation merely because the underlying posts were formally "created" by the government: contractual terms voluntarily accepted are generally binding and courts will not override a government's policy choice to hire on contract.