STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus ANITA & ANR. ETC.
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 882, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 882 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
v. 
ANITA & ANR. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6132-33 of2016) 
JULY 12,2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, R. BANUMATHI AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Service Law - Appointment - On contractual basis - Propriety 
of - Government resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006 
approving filling up 471 posts on contractual basis - As per the 
resolutions appointments were to be made initially for eleven months,. 
to be renewed twice (11 months each time) and after maximum 
contractual period fresh process of selection was to be initiated -
Appointment of respondents -After expiry of term of the respondents, 
State issued fresh advertisement - Thereafter respondents challenged 
the conditions in the Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006 
- State Administrative Tribunal held that the posts were permanent 
in nature - However, there was no direction to regularise the 
respondents - Writ Petition by the State as well as respondents -
-
Dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: The Government 
Resolutions show that intention of the State was to fill up the posts 
on contractual basis - The terms of the agreement which the 
respondents had entered into further reiterate that the appointments 
were contractual - The respondents, after having accepted 
contractual appointment, are estopped from challenging the terms 
of their appointment - The Governments policy decision to fill up 
the posts on contractual basis, could not
have been interfered with 
by the Tribunal and the High Court - Estoppel - Administrative 
Law - Policy decision. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The intention of the State Government to fill up 
the posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors 
on contractual basis is manifest from the clauses in Government 
Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006. The terms of the 
agreement which the respondents have entered into, also 
882
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ANITA & ANR. ETC. 
reiterate the stand of the State that the appointments were purely 
contractual and that the respondents shall not be entitled to claim 
any right or interest of permanent service in the Government. 
Conditions of respondents' engagement is governed by the terms 
of agreement. After having accepted contractual appointment, 
the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their 
appointment. [Paras 14 and 16] [887-G; 888-H; 889-A-B] 
2. Creation of posts was only for administrative purposes 
for sanction of the amount towards expenditure incurred, but 
merely because the posts were created, they cannot be held to 
be permanent in nature. When the Government has taken a policy 
decision to fill the posts on contractual basis, the Tribunal and 
the High Court ought not to have interfered with the policy 
decision to hold that the appointments are permanent in nature. 
JJ,>ara 1 ?l [889-Dl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6132-
33 of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2012 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition Nos. 
9145 of2010 and 9160 of2010 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 6134, 6135-36, 6137,6138, 6139, 6140, 6141-42, 6143, 
6144,6145,6146,6147-48,6149,6150,6151,6152-S3,6154,6155,6156, 
6157of2016. 
Madhvi Divan, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms. Anagha 
S. Desai, Vishal Jogdand, Debasis Misra, Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Prerna 
Kumari, Binay Kumar Das, Sachin
Patil, Shriram P. Pingle, Dilip 
Annasahed Taur, Amo! V. Deshmukh, Ms. Kanchan Vohra, A nil Kumar, 
Dr. Kailash Chand, Ms. Madhavi Divan, Atul B. Dakh, Nitin S. 
Tambwekar, B. S. Sai, K. Rajeev, Shankar Shillarge, Mis. Lawyer's 
Knit and Co), Vinayak Dixit, Sr. Adv., Pranav Sachdeva, Roh it Kr. Singh, 
Roh it Kumar Singh, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Ashutosh Dubey Abhishek 
Chauhan, V. S. Rawat, Satyajit A. Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desi, Akash 
Kakade, Advs. for the appearing parties. 
883 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
884 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016]4 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
R. BANUMATHI, J. l. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 
2. This batch of appeals has been filed against the order dated 
28.03.2012 and other impugned orders passed by the High Court of 
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad whereby 4 71 posts of Legal Advisors, 
Law Officers and Law Instructors created by Government Resolutions 
dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006 for appointment on contractual basis 
under the Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Greater 
Mumbai, were held to be pennanent in nature. For convenience, appeals 
arising out of SLP(C) No.34788-34789 of 2012 are taken as the lead 
case. 
3. State of Maharashtra vide Government Resolution dated 
21.08.2006 approved creation of 471 posts in various cadres including 
Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors under the 
establishment of Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, 
Greater Mumbai. As per clause (3) of the said Government Resolution, 
the posts shall be filled up on contractual basis as per the terms and 
conditions prescribed by the Government. By a subsequent Resolution 
dated 15 .09 .2006, the Government maintained that 4 71 posts created 
vide resolution dated 21.08.2006 shall be filled up on contractual basis 
by payment of consolidated pay. As per the conditions of service laid 
down in the Government Resolution dated 15 .09 .2006, the appointment 
was initially for
eleven months and with a provision of extension up to 
maximum of three tenns each term being of eleven months. After expiry 
of third term, the candidates are required to face fresh selection process 
once again. After the expiry of the tenn ofrespondents, their appointments 
automatically came to an end. In pursuance of the expiry of terms of 
respondents, the State issued fresh advertisements f()r recruitment of 
Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors on 05.12.2009, 
13.01.20 I 0 etc. 
4. On expiry of the contractual period and being aggrieved by 
publication of fresh advertisement, the respondents approached the 
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenging the conditions in the 
Government Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006, which laid 
down that the appointment of the law officers/law instructors shall be 
contractual, is arbitrary and that the respondents should have been 
appointed on regular pay scale and not on consolidated pay. The tribunal
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ANITA & ANR. ETC. 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
partly allowed the claim of the respondents and the tribunal struck down 
those provisions by holding that clause (3) of the Government Resolution 
dated 21.08.2006 and the clauses 'A', 'B', and 'C' in the Government 
Resolution dated 15.9.2006 suffered from arbitrariness and 
unreasonableness. However, no direction was issued by the tribunal 
directing the State Government to regularise the respondents. 
5. Aggrieved thereof, respondents filed writ petitions before the 
High Court seeking for a direction to the State Government to regularise 
their services. State Government also filed writ petition challenging the 
order of the tribunal striking down the clauses in the said Government 
Resolutions as arbitrary and for setting aside the order of the tribunal. 
6. The High Court vide impugned judgment dismissed all the writ 
petitions filed by the State Government as well as by the respondents. 
The High Court took the view that 4 71 posts created by the State 
Government in various cadres are permanent posts and thus the 
appointments thereon must also be permanent. However, considering 
the fact that the appointment of the respondents were not made in regular 
manner under the constitutional scheme, the High Court held that the 
respondents/original applicants cannot claim permanency and/or 
regularisation. 
7. Being aggrieved, the State as well as the applicants have preferred 
these appeals. Vide order
dated 02.11.2012, this Court has granted stay 
of operation of the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2012 passed by the 
High Court as well as the order dated 06.05.2010 passed by the 
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench and this Court 
directed that the respondents be permitted to continue in service until 
further orders. Similar orders came to be passed in other appeals also. 
However, this Court's order dated 02.11.2012 was modified by a 
subsequent order of this Court dated 19.08.2014 to the effect that "the 
Law Officers/Law Advisers/Law Instructors, whose contractual 
appointments have come to an end, shall not be continued beyond 
their contractual period. If their appointments have been renewed, 
the same shall be continued till the period comes to an end". 
8. On instructions, counsel for the State of Maharashtra submitted 
that in view of the order dated 19.08.2014, presently none of the 
respondents are continuing in service. Since none of the respondents 
are continuing in service, the appeals have become infructuous. However, 
885 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
886 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
the appeals ought to be decided to answer the contentious issues raised 
and to settle the questions of law involved in the matter. 
9. Learned counsel for the appellants contented that 4 71 posts 
created by the Government Resolution dated 21.08.2006 were not 
permanent posts and the appointments were made purely on contractual 
basis. It was submitted that filling up of 471 posts on contractual basis 
and not on permanent basis is a matter of government policy and that it 
was beyond the purview of the tribunal to set aside the same. It was 
submitted that the respondents had entered into a contract with the State 
Government thereby accepting the terms of service laid down in 
Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006 and having accepted the 
appointment on contractual basis, the respondents are estopped from 
challenging the validity of the said Government Resolutions dated 
21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006. 
I 0. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents contended that 
clause (3) in the Government Resolution dated 21.08.2006 and clause 
'A', 'B' and 'C' in the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006 are 
arbitrary and unreasonable and rightly struck down by the tribunal as 
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution oflndia. It was further 
contended that even though the respondents had entered into a contract 
with the government accepting clause (3) in the Government Resolution 
dated 21.08.2006 and the
clauses 'A', '8' and 'C' in the Government 
Resolution dated 15.09.2006, the same will not operate as estoppel. 
11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by 
learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and 
the material on record. 
F 
12. In the Government Resolution dated 21.08.2006 while creating 
4 71 posts in various cadres including Legal Advisors, Law Officers and 
Law Instructors in clause (3) of the said Resolution, it.was made clear 
that the posts created ought to be filled up on contractual basis. Clause 
(3) reads as under:-
G 
"The said posts instead of being filled in the regular manner should 
be kept vacant and should be filled on the contract basis as per 
the terms and conditions prescribed by the government or having 
prepared the Recruitment Rules should be filled as per the 
provisions therein." 
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ANITA & ANR. ETC. 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
13. Subsequently, the said Resolution was modified by Government 
Resolution dated 15.09.2006. In the said Resolution, the column specifying 
"Pay Scale" was substituted with column "Combined Permissible 
Monthly Pay + Telephone & Travel Expenses". However, there was 
no change in the decision of the government on filling up the posts on 
contractual basis. Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006 stipulates 
the terms and conditions of the contractual appointments. Clauses 'A', 
'B', 'C' and 'D' read as under:-
"A) The appointment of the said posts would be completely on 
contractual basis. These officers/employees would not be counted 
as government employees. 
B) The said appointments should be made on contract basis firstly 
for 11 months. After 11 months the term of the agreement could 
be increased from time to time if necessary. Whereas, the 
appointing authority would take the precaution while extending 
the terms in this manner that, at one time this term should not be 
more than 11 months. The appointment in this way could be made 
maximum three times. Thereafter, ifthe competent authority is of 
the opinion that the reappointment of such candidate is necessary 
then such candidate would have to again face the selection process. 
C) The concerned appointing authority at the time of the 
appointment would execute an agreement with the concerned 
candidate in the prescribed format. The prescribed
format of the 
agreement is given in Appendix 'B'. It would be the responsibility 
of the concerned office to preserve all the documents of the 
agreement. 
D) Except for the combined pay and permissible telephone and 
travel expenses (more than the above mentioned limit) any other 
allowances would not be admissible for the officers/employees 
being appointed on contract basis." 
14. The intention of the State Government to fill up the posts of 
Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors on contractual basis 
is manifest from the above clauses in Government Resolutions dated 
21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006. While creating 471 posts vide Resolution 
dated 21.08.2006, the Government made it clear that the posts should be 
filled up on contractual basis as per terms and conditions prescribed by 
the Government. As per clause 'B' of the Government Resolution dated 
887 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
888 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
15.09.2006, the initial contractual period ofappointment is eleven months 
and there is a provision for extension of contract for further eleven months. 
Clause' B' makes it clear that the appointment could be made maximum 
three times and extension of contract beyond the third term is not allowed. 
If the competent authority is of the opinion that the reappointment of 
such candidates is necessary then such candidates would again have to 
face the selection process. 
15. It is relevant to note that the respondents at the time of 
appointment have accepted an agreement in accordance with Appendix 
'B' attached to Government Resolution dated 15 .09 .2006. The terms of 
the agreement specifically lay down that the appointment is purely 
contractual and that the respondents will not be entitled to claim any 
rights, interest and benefits whatsoever of the permanent service in the 
government. We may usefully refer to the relevant clauses in the format 
of the agreement which read as under:-
" 1. The First Party hereby agrees to appoint Shri/Smt. ----
(Party No. II) as a 
on contract basis for a period of 11 
months commencing from 
to 
(mention 
date) on consolidated remuneration ofRs. 
(Rupees 
______ only) per month, and said remuneration will be 
payable at the end of each calendar month according to British 
Calendar. It is agreed that Il"d party shall not be entitled for 
separate T.A. and D.A. during the
contract period .... 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. Assignment of 11 months contract is renewable for a further 
two terms of 11 months (i.e. total 3 terms), subject to the 
satisfaction of Competent Authority, and on its recommendations. 
6. The Party No. II will not be entitled to claim any rights, interest, 
benefits whatsoever of the permanent service in the Government." 
16. The above terms of the agreement further reiterate the stand 
of the State that the appointments were purely contractual and that the 
respondents sh al I not be entitled to claim any right or interest of permanent
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ANITA & ANR. ETC. 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
service in the government. The appointments of respondents were made 
initially for eleven months but were renewed twice and after serving the 
maximum contractual period, the services of the respondents came to 
an end and the Government initiated a fresh process of selection. 
Conditions of respondents' engagement is governed by the terms of 
agreement. After having accepted contractual appointment, the 
respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment. 
Furthermore, respondents are not precluded from applying for the said 
posts afresh subject to the satisfaction of other eligibility criteria. 
17. The High Court did not keep in view the various clauses in the 
Government Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and I 5.09 .2006 and also the 
terms of the agreement entered into by the respondents with the 
government. Creation of posts was only for administrative purposes for 
sanction of the amount towards expenditure incurred but merely because 
the posts were created, they cannot be held to be permanent in nature. 
When the government has taken a policy decision to fill up 471 posts of 
Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors on contractual basis, 
the tribunal and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the 
policy decision to hold that the appointments are permanent in nature. 
18. In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set 
aside and these appeals
are allowed. 
19. Consequently, all other appeals are also allowed. 
20. No costs. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeals allowed. 
889 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E