Court allows appeals, sets aside order. Respondent's appeals dismissed, no relief granted. Tenure-based appointment upheld.

The court allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, setting aside the Division Bench's order. The respondent's appeals were dismissed, and he was not granted any relief. The validity of the tenure-based appointment and subsequent recruitment process was upheld, emphasizing principles of delay, laches, acquiescence, and the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay, laches, and acquiescence in approaching the court.
2. Tenure-based appointment versus regular employment.
3. Appropriation and reprobation by the respondent.
4. Validity of the relieving order and the subsequent recruitment process.
5. Applicability of the doctrine of fairness and legitimate expectation.
6. Interpretation of the rules governing the appointment of the Director-General.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay, Laches, and Acquiescence in Approaching the Court:
The court emphasized that the respondent's delay in challenging the terms of his appointment and seeking relief was significant. The respondent first raised the issue of being a permanent employee only near the end of his tenure, which indicated acquiescence. The principles of delay, laches, and acquiescence were thoroughly discussed, highlighting that the respondent's conduct, including his late representations, barred him from seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Tenure-Based Appointment Versus Regular Employment:
The court clarified that the rules did not prohibit tenure-based appointments. The appointment of the respondent as Director-General on a tenure basis was valid and within the discretion of the employer. The court noted that direct recruitment does not necessarily imply regular employment, and the rules allowed for tenure appointments. The respondent's claim that he should be treated as a regular employee was rejected based on the clear terms of his appointment.

3. Appropriation and Reprobation by the Respondent:
The court applied the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, emphasizing that the respondent could not accept the benefits of his tenure appointment and later challenge its terms. The respondent's conduct of accepting the appointment and only challenging it near the end of his tenure was seen as an attempt to blow hot and cold, which is impermissible under the law.

4. Validity of the Relieving Order and the Subsequent Recruitment Process:
The court found that the relieving order issued to the respondent was valid and could not be construed as a termination. The decision to go for fresh recruitment was taken at the highest level, including approval from the Cabinet Secretary and the Hon'ble Minister. The court rejected the Division Bench's inference that the highest constitutional authority was misled by lower officials, affirming that the decision was made consciously and in the interest of the society.

5. Applicability of the Doctrine of Fairness and Legitimate Expectation:
The court discussed the doctrine of fairness, stating that it applies more rigorously in employer-employee relationships involving state instrumentalities. However, the respondent could not claim legitimate expectation against the clear terms of his tenure appointment. The court held that the employer's decision was not arbitrary and was made in the larger public interest.

6. Interpretation of the Rules Governing the Appointment of the Director-General:
The court interpreted the rules governing the appointment, concluding that there was no statutory bar to a tenure-based appointment. The rules allowed for discretion in appointing the Director-General on a tenure basis, and the respondent's appointment was in line with these rules. The court emphasized that the employer's decision to appoint the respondent on a tenure basis was valid and within its discretion.

Conclusion:
The appeals filed by the appellants were allowed, setting aside the impugned order of the Division Bench. The respondent's appeals were dismissed, and he was not entitled to any relief. The court upheld the validity of the tenure-based appointment and the subsequent recruitment process, emphasizing the principles of delay, laches, acquiescence, and the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.

---