Temporary appointment rights: no automatic pre termination hearing where contract permits termination, subject to binding approval rules.

The text addresses termination of purely temporary appointees and the effect of contravening government approval instructions. It clarifies that where contracts expressly state a post is purely temporary and terminable at any time without notice, appointees acquire no substantive right to continued employment and are not entitled to a pre termination hearing under principles of natural justice or equality; such terminations are valid. Separately, appointments made in breach of binding government instructions requiring prior approval undermine the legitimacy of those appointments, and a court order quashing termination must account for that breach.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether termination of services of employees appointed on a purely temporary basis without prior hearing violated principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution; (ii) Whether the appointments were made contrary to specific government instructions requiring prior approval and if that affected the validity of termination.

Issue (i): Whether termination of temporary appointees without prior hearing was contrary to natural justice and Article 14.

Analysis: The appointments expressly described the post as purely temporary and stated that the services were liable to termination at any time without notice or assigning any reason. A temporary appointment does not confer a substantive or permanent right to the post and does not convert into permanence except by operation of a rule or a subsequent declaration. In the absence of any statutory rule or order declaring the appointees permanent, the contractual terms permitting termination without notice govern the relationship.

Conclusion: The termination did not violate principles of natural justice or Article 14 insofar as the appointees were purely temporary and terminable without notice; they were not entitled to a hearing prior to termination.

Issue (ii): Whether the appointments contravened government instructions requiring prior approval and whether that vitiates the termination/quashing of termination.

Analysis: The appellant-corporation, being a government company, was subject to government instructions which directed that appointments related to the project required prior approval. The appointments were made in disregard of those instructions by the then managing director shortly before his retirement. The High Court failed to take those instructions into account when quashing the terminations.

Conclusion: The appointments were made contrary to the government order requiring prior approval; the High Court's quashing of the termination without considering that fact was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the High Court order quashing the termination is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed, restoring the authority of the appellant to terminate the temporary appointees under the terms of their appointments and subject to the government instructions regarding prior approval.

Ratio Decidendi: A purely temporary appointment that is expressively terminable at any time without notice does not give rise to a substantive right to continued employment and therefore does not attract the procedural protections of Article 311 or require a pre-termination hearing; such appointments remain subject to any binding governmental instructions governing the creation of the posts.

---