In Brief
A college lecturer was appointed on an ad-hoc basis with a term allowing termination without notice if performance proved unsatisfactory. After two academic years, her services were terminated citing unsatisfactory performance. The High Court Division Bench allowed her writ petition, treating the termination as stigmatic and requiring formal inquiry protections. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that ad-hoc appointments carry no right to continuation like regular probationary appointments; termination based on unsatisfactory work is non-punitive and does not require formal disciplinary safeguards where the appointment terms expressly permit such termination without inquiry.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.