Manisha Priyadarshini v. Aurobindo College- Evening & Ors

FACTS

• The appellant, an ad-hoc Assistant Professor in the Department of English at Sri Aurobindo College-Evening (affiliated with the University of Delhi), appealed against a judgment dated 20.08.2019.

• The appellant claimed that the college adopted a routine practice of renewing the contractual appointment of ad-hoc professors every 120 days.

• The appellant, the Senior-most ad-hoc Assistant Professor in the department, requested maternity leave for her first child on 22.02.2019, specifically from 14.01.2019 to 24.05.2019, due to pregnancy complications.

• Her request for leave was made via letter on 04.01.2019 and reiterated on 16.01.2019.

• Subsequently, the appellant's appointment was not renewed/was terminated. She filed a petition, which was initially dismissed in limine.

ISSUES

• Whether the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 1-College terminating the ad-hoc appointment of the Appellant was unreasonable and ought to be interfered with.

JUDGEMENT

• The apex court ruled that the termination order issued by the College was invalid and set aside.

• The court quashed the order, directing the appellant to be appointed as an Assistant Professor in the English Department on an ad-hoc basis until vacant posts are filled through regular appointment.

• The appeal was allowed, with costs of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the respondents, to be paid within four weeks.

OBSERVATION

• Ad-hoc Rights vs. Arbitrariness: While ad-hoc employees cannot insist on the renewal of a contract merely due to their ad-hoc employment, and are not exempt from the regular appointment process, Courts have not hesitated in extending protection to the aggrieved party in circumstances where there is arbitrariness writ large.

• Judicial Review: The validity of a termination order is subject to judicial review for the court to determine whether the action of the respondents was illegal, perverse, unreasonable, unfair or irrational.

• Finding of the Court: In the instant case, the Court found that unreasonableness, unfairness, and irrationality is writ large in the action of the College, "inasmuch as they have continued with the services of others who are junior to the appellant/petitioner, on an ad-hoc basis and have deprived her of the benefit of further ad-hoc appointment, without any reasonable cause."

Social Security Legislations: Salient Features

This case directly intersects with the fundamental principles of social security in India, particularly relating to maternity benefits and the right against arbitrary employment termination.

The salient features of social security legislations relevant to this context include:

• Protection of Maternity: The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (and its amendments) is a core social security measure that recognizes the social importance of motherhood and aims to protect the health and employment of working women during pregnancy.

  • Protection from Dismissal: A key provision is the protection against dismissal or discharge during the period of maternity leave. While this protection is stronger for permanent employees, the judicial trend (as seen in this case) extends the principle of non-arbitrariness to cover ad-hoc or contractual employees seeking such benefits.

• Welfare State Obligation (Article 42): Article 42 of the Constitution of India mandates the State to make provision for just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. Courts often use this Directive Principle to interpret labor and service laws in favor of the employee, especially in cases of exploitation or arbitrary action.

• Constitutional Mandate (Articles 14 & 21): The Court's finding that the termination was unreasonable and unfair directly invokes the guarantees of Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 21 (Right to Livelihood/Life). Terminating employment based on a request for a fundamental social benefit like maternity leave is viewed as arbitrary and thus violative of these rights.