Kiran Raj

A legal dispute arising from the termination of a temporary contractual lecturer has resulted in a judicial decision upholding the college authority’s decision to deny reinstatement. The case centered on the petitioner’s claim that the termination was carried out without due notice or compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner was engaged as a contractual lecturer in Sanskrit at Deshapran Mahavidyalaya under a temporary appointment structure, receiving a remuneration of Rs. 100 per lecture with periodic renewals. The appointment was contractual and subject to renewal at the discretion of the institution. The petitioner availed child care leave from August 6, 2016, to January 30, 2017. During this period, she did not perform any teaching duties. The child care leave was granted without pay.

Following the expiration of the leave period, the petitioner did not report to duty or formally communicate with the college administration regarding an extension or willingness to resume service. The institution contended that after more than two years of absence, she attempted to rejoin in December 2019, but by that time, her employment had been deemed terminated due to non-renewal of the contractual appointment.

The petitioner argued that her employment was still active as there was no official communication from the college regarding her termination. Her counsel contended that the principle of natural justice required that she be informed and given an opportunity to contest the decision. The petitioner’s counsel relied on judicial precedents, including Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597), arguing that administrative decisions affecting employment must be communicated to the concerned individual. Additionally, reference was made to Gorkha Security Service v. Government (NCT of Delhi) (AIR 2014 SC 3371) to state the necessity of prior notice before any adverse action.

The respondents, including the college authority, argued that the petitioner had remained absent since January 2017 and did not apply for an extension or show intent to resume duties. The college cited a resolution passed on July 15, 2017, that formally decided against renewing the petitioner’s contract due to prolonged absence and alleged irregular attendance prior to her leave. The college also referenced government orders issued in September 2017 prohibiting temporary contractual appointments in state-aided colleges, reinforcing their stance that the petitioner could not be reinstated.

The court examined the arguments presented by both parties and evaluated the contractual nature of the petitioner’s appointment. The judgment recorded: “The petitioner was appointed solely on contractual manner purely on temporary basis. Her appointment was renewed time to time till July 2016. Since August 2016 to August 30, 2017, she was in child care leave, without pay, on the prayer of the petitioner; since then petitioner never filed any application, nor made any communication with college authority.”

The court stated that contractual employment lacks the security of tenure and is subject to periodic renewal. As the petitioner was on a fixed-term contract, she had no vested right to claim continuation of employment after the contract expired. The judgment further recorded: “The petitioner was on contractual service purely temporary basis for a particular period. In absence of the petitioner from the college, automatically determined the contract after contract period is over.”

Regarding the petitioner’s claim of lack of communication from the college regarding her termination, the court distinguished this case from those where employment was arbitrarily terminated without prior notice. It observed that since the petitioner was on a fixed-term contract, non-renewal was a natural conclusion and did not require a separate termination order. The court held:

“The contract was valid for a specific period and had not been extended beyond the approved tenure. The petitioner’s absence from service for an extended duration without any formal application for rejoining indicates lack of willingness to continue.”

Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on judicial precedents, the court noted that Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India and Gorkha Security Service v. Government (NCT of Delhi) dealt with administrative decisions requiring procedural fairness but were not directly applicable to contractual employment. It stated: “The principle of natural justice has not been violated in the present facts and circumstances. The petitioner, having remained absent for an extended period, cannot claim automatic reinstatement.”

The court also referred to U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Brijesh Kumar where termination of employment without a hearing was considered a violation of procedural fairness. However, it stated that in cases of contractual employment, termination occurs naturally upon non-renewal, distinguishing the cited precedent.

The petitioner also relied on Vandana Srimedha v. State of Kerala, where the Kerala High Court had adjudicated in favor of a contractual employee whose leave application was ignored. The court held that this case was distinguishable as the petitioner in the present case had not submitted any application for extension or clarification regarding her leave status beyond the approved period.

Based on the findings, the court stated: “Under the above circumstances, the instant writ petition is dismissed and disposed of as devoid of merit.”

The judgment stated the limitations of contractual employment and upheld the college authority’s decision not to renew the petitioner’s engagement. It also stated that administrative resolutions adopted by the institution in 2017 regarding the petitioner’s employment status were lawful and not arbitrary.

Case Title: Anindita Maity (Mitra) v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 6357 (W) of 2020
Bench: Justice Subhendu Samanta

[Read/Download order]