SC rules unreasoned orders on part-time lecturers' regularisation aren't binding precedents, limits writ discretion on equitable relief

SC examined the legality of an HC order directing continuation and de facto regularisation of part-time lecturers until regular appointments were made, with salary during vacation. SC held that an order becomes a precedent only if it decides a question of law with reasons, and that unreasoned directions of regularisation in prior cases could not be relied upon as binding authority. SC further held that while HC enjoys judicial discretion under writ jurisdiction, such discretion is limited to refusing or declining relief on proper grounds and does not extend to granting relief solely on perceived interests of justice. The impugned HC order was set aside and the appeal allowed.

---

---

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.

---