B D JADHAVAR Vs. K D BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though the appellant was initially appointed as an ad hoc lecturer in the first respondent-college which had not had the requisite students to allow the appellant to continue on that post, they had written to the Director of Higher Education to have him transferred to any other college. Consequently, the Director of Higher Education had written to the Principal of the first respondent-college to have him relieved so that he should be posted and instructed the third respondent-college where there was a vacancy, to have him joined therein. Accordingly, on 14/7/1985 the Principal of the third respondent-college had agreed to and the appellant was directed to report for duty immediately in the third respondent-college. Unfortunately, instead of reporting himself for duty he went to the college, asked them to give him the letter of appointment as permanent teacher. Since they did not give letter of appointment, he went to the tribunal and obtained an order to have him posted as regular lecturer. By that time six months' time had elapsed. Then he wrote a letter on 28/1/1985 requesting the third respondent to take him back on duty; a telegram was sent by the third respondent informing the appellant that he need not come for joining the duty. Then he filed the writ petition in the High court. The High court by its order dated 30/8/1993 in CWP No. 426 of 1985 dismissed the writ petition. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(3.) Shri V. M. Tarkunde, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that since by virtue of the policy of the government, the appellant had put in more than two years' service as temporary reserve lecturer, he must be deemed to be a regular lecturer and he having been appointed as a lecturer in the first respondent-college, must be deemed to be a regular lecturer in that college. He cannot be transferred elsewhere, but having been posted and gone to report to the third respondent, he was not taken on duty. He cannot be kept in vacuum and he has lawful right to continue as a lecturer in the first respondent-college. The omission to take him on duty amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his right to post to which he is entitled and thus amounts to dismissal without enquiry.