1991 (12) TMI 57 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the petitioners who have been appointed on part time basis should be continued until the Government makes regular appointments on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. Meanwhile, the petitioners will get their salary for the period of the vacation? Held that - A decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law. The respondents are, therefore, not entitled to rely upon an order of this court which directs a temporary employee to be regularised in his service without assigning reasons. It has to be presumed that on special grounds which must have been available to the temporary employees in those cases, they were entitled to the relief granted. Merely because grounds are not mentioned in a judgment of this court, it cannot be understood to have been passed without an adequate legal basis therefore. It is true that the High Court is entitled to exercise its judicial discretion in deciding writ petitions or civil revision applications but this discretion has to be confined to declining to entertain petitions and refusing to grant relief asked for by the petitioners, on adequate considerations ; and it does not permit the High Court to grant relief on such a consideration alone.We, therefore, reject the argument addressed on behalf of the respondents that the High Court was entitled to pass any order which it thought fit in the interests of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order of the High Court regarding part-time lecturer appointments.
2. Enforceability of specific terms of appointment.
3. Interpretation of court directions for absorption of temporary employees.
4. Jurisdiction and discretion of the High Court in granting relief.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a challenge against the High Court's order in a writ petition filed by two respondents who were appointed as part-time lecturers. The High Court directed that the petitioners be continued in their positions until regular appointments were made by the Government through the Public Service Commission, with salary during the vacation period. The Supreme Court granted special leave to hear the case.

2. The appointments of the respondents as part-time lecturers were made based on specific conditions set out in annexures P-1 and P-2. The respondents accepted these terms without mistake. The Supreme Court found no reason why the terms of appointment could not be enforced, as there was no material or tenable plea supporting the claim for regular pay scale. The court emphasized the importance of enforcing specific terms agreed upon in appointments.

3. The respondents argued that the High Court should be able to pass orders similar to those issued by the Supreme Court for absorption of temporary employees without providing reasons. However, the Supreme Court clarified that such decisions must be based on special grounds, even if not explicitly mentioned in the judgment. The court highlighted the distinction between the Supreme Court's authority under Article 142 and the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction in granting relief.

4. While acknowledging the High Court's discretion in deciding writ petitions, the Supreme Court emphasized that such discretion should be based on adequate considerations and should not solely rely on subjective notions of justice. The court held that the High Court cannot pass orders solely based on the interests of justice without proper legal basis. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal without costs, emphasizing the boundaries of judicial discretion and jurisdiction.