Union of India v. N Murugesan
Background
N Murugesan was appointed Director-General of the Central Power Research Institute (CPRI) for an initial five-year tenure, with eligibility for re-appointment up to his superannuation. Nearly five years into his tenure, and only when it was ending, he claimed for the first time that his appointment should be treated as a regular, permanent post rather than a fixed tenure. After an adverse performance review, the government decided not to extend him and advertised the post afresh; he challenged the relieving order and the fresh recruitment in the High Court. The High Court's Division Bench granted him compensation (though not reinstatement), and both sides appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the CPRI recruitment rules did not bar a tenure-based direct recruitment, and the appointment letter itself made clear re-appointment depended on suitability, which the employer had assessed and found unfavourable through a proper process. Crucially, the Court held that Murugesan's conduct, accepting the tenure appointment for years without objection and raising the "I'm a regular employee" claim only as his term was ending, amounted to acquiescence and unexplained delay, which disentitled him to discretionary relief under Article 226, reinforced by the principle that a person cannot "approbate and reprobate" (accept the benefits of an arrangement for years and then reject its terms). The Court allowed the government's appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed Murugesan's appeals.
Lesson Learnt
If you accept the terms of a fixed-tenure job and perform under those terms for years, you cannot wait until your term is about to end to suddenly claim you were really a permanent employee: courts treat such delayed objections as acquiescence that forfeits the right to relief.