Summary
The termination of an ad hoc lecturer for unsatisfactory work was upheld as non-punitive. Her appointment was expressly temporary pending regular recruitment, rather than probationary, and reserved power to terminate for poor performance. The Principal’s comments concerned work and did not establish misconduct as the foundation of termination. The Division Bench erred in applying probation principles and treating the order as stigmatic.
Issues
- Whether termination for unsatisfactory work under the ad hoc appointment terms was punitive or attracted probationary protections.
Held
- The appointment letter expressly provided ad hoc employment until a regular lecturer was appointed. It contained no probation condition and conferred no rights equivalent to regular appointment. (¶¶ 3, 9, 13)
- Assessment of unsatisfactory work was the motive for deciding whether to continue employment, rather than a finding of misconduct forming the foundation of punishment. The Principal’s comments concerned work and did not make the termination stigmatic. (¶ 9–13)
- Authorities concerning disciplinary action following regular inquiries did not govern this termination of an ad hoc employee. The Division Bench’s interference was therefore unsustainable. (¶ 14–15)
Result
Appeal allowed; Division Bench judgment set aside, leaving the termination undisturbed. No costs.