1
wp1460.02.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.1460 of 2002
1. Ashish M. Mahalle.
2. Manish J. Deshmukh.
3. Vijay R. Sirsat.
4. Mohan R. Malwankar.
5. Homraj M. Patil.
6. Nitin U. Korde.
7. Miss S.P. Gawande.
8. Rahul S. Khokle.
9. Dinesh V. Rojatkar.
10.Mrs. P.A. Gulhane.
11.Avinash V. Gondchour.
12.Rahul P. Deshmukh.
13.S.G. Yawale.
All residents of Datta Colony,
Dastur Nagar, Amravati. ... Petitioners
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:51:03 :::
2
wp1460.02.odt
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Director of Technical Education,
Maharashtra State, 3-Mahapalika
Marg, Mumbai - 400 001.
3. The Principal,
Government College of Engineering,
Amravati.
4. Shri Shinde,
C/o Principal,
Government College of Engineering,
Amravati. ... Respondents
Shri Rohit Vaidya, Advocate, holding for Shri Anand Parchure,
Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri N.s. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
Dated : 27 nd June, 2017 Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. Shri Vaidya, Advocate, holding for Shri Anand Parchure, the learned counsel for the petitioners, makes a statement that ::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:51:03 ::: 3 wp1460.02.odt the grievance in this petition survives only to the extent of petitioners No.1 and 3, viz. Ashish M. Mahalle and Vijay R. Sirsat respectively. Hence, we proceed to examine their claims on merits.
2. The petitioners No.1 and 3 were working as Lecturers on ad hoc basis in the Government Engineering College. The petitioner No.1 has rendered 10 years of service, whereas the petitioner No.3 has rendered 7 years of service. The State Government, by its Resolution dated 13-3-2015, regularized the services of 65 teachers working in the Government Engineering and Pharmacy Colleges on ad hoc/contract basis. Though the petitioners No.1 and 3 have rendered 10 and 8 years respectively on ad hoc basis, their services were not regularized. Hence, this petition was filed claiming similar treatment of regularization.
3. It is reported that the petitioner No.1 was selected and appointed on the post of Reader in Laxminarayan College of Engineering run by the Nagpur University, on 6-8-2009, on ::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:51:03 ::: 4 wp1460.02.odt which date itself he joined the post. He was working on ad hoc basis in the earlier service in the Government Engineering College up to 5-8-2009, and there was no break in his service. Since then, he is working as Reader in Laxminarayan Institute of Technology, Nagpur.
4. The petitioner No.3 was working as Lecturer in the Government Engineering College on ad hoc basis till 8-2-2007. He was then selected through Union Public Service Commission on the post of Assistant Director in the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Government of India. The order of appointment was issued on 9-2-2007, on which date itself he joined the post. Hence, there was no break in his service.
5. In our view, the grievance of the petitioners No.1 and 3 claiming regularization in service on par with those regularized by the Government Resolution dated 13-3-2015, does not at all survive in view of the subsequent events of appointments of the petitioners No.1 and 3 on 6-8-2009 and 9-2-2007 respectively, in ::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:51:03 ::: 5 wp1460.02.odt the Institution run by the University and in the Ministry under the Government of India.
6. Relying on the University Grants Commission Regulations dated 30-6-2010, the Government Resolution dated 15-2-2011 adopting the said regulations, and the Government Circular dated 28-9-2012, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners No.1 and 3 are entitled to count their past service rendered on ad hoc basis for all other purposes, i.e. for fixation of pay, seniority, pension, etc., as there is no break in the employment on ad hoc basis Engineering College run by the State of Maharashtra.
7. The present petition was filed in the year 2002, when neither the aforesaid University Grants Commission Regulations nor the Government Resolution and Circular were in force. The competent authority is, therefore, required to judge/examine the cases of the petitioners for grant of such benefits in accordance with law. In the absence of such consideration by the competent ::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:51:03 ::: 6 wp1460.02.odt authority in the employment of the petitioners, we cannot for the first time entertain such claim. The demand and refusal of such claim are the factors necessary for exercising the jurisdiction of issuance of mandamus.
8. In the result, we dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioners No.1 and 3 to approach the competent authority making such grievance, which shall be considered in the light of the relevant provisions of law, rules and regulations and the Government Resolutions/Circulars applicable and non- consideration of the claims of the petitioners in this judgment shall not come in their way. No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
Lanjewar
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:51:03 :::