Dr.Anil Sukhdevrao Dhage Nagpur vs State Of Mah. Mumbai & 3 Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 55 Bom

                                                        1                     wp1250.02.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR




                                                                                       
                               Writ Petition No.1250/2002




                                                               
          Dr. Anil s/o Sukhdevrao Dhage,
          aged 30 years, Occ. Pvt. Practitioner,
          r/o Sharamjivi Nagar, Post Parvati Nagar,
          Nagpur.                                ...PETITIONER




                                                              
                                   ...V E R S U S...

     1. State of Maharashtra, through its




                                               
        Secretary, Health Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai.  
     2. The Dean, Government Medical College
        and Hospital, Nagpur.
                            
     3. Rural Health Centre, Saoner,
        distt. Nagpur, through its Professor.

     4. Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
      


        Bench at Nagpur, through its Member.
   



     5. Dr. Sandip Gujar,
        r/o At Post Khapa, Tq. Saoner,
        Dist. Nagpur.





     6. Director of Medical Education and
        Research, through its Director,
        c/o Government Dental College 
        Building, Sr. George Hospital Compound,
        Mumbai-1.





     7. Dean,
          Government Dental College, Nagpur.                      ...RESPONDENTS
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Mr. U. S. Dupare, Advocate for petitioner.
     Mr. S. M. Ukey, A.P.P. for respondent-State.
     Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.5.
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     CORAM:-  A. B. CHAUDHARI &  P. N. DESHMUKH                            , JJ.




    ::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015                               ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:02:36 :::
                                                     2                     wp1250.02.odt

                     DATED :-   
                                AUGUST 13, 2015




                                                                                   
     J U D G M E N T (Per : A. B. Chaudhari, J.)

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner Dr. Anil

Dhage, a Dentist, has put to challenge judgment and order dated

24.12.2001 in Original Application No.558/2000, inter alia, by

which the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) held that

the ad hoc employee-petitioner was replaced by a bonded

candidate namely; respondent no.5-Dr. Sandip Gujar on

09.04.2001 and, therefore, the Original Application did not

survive and was disposed of.

FACTS:

2. The petitioner, being a qualified Dental Surgeon, was

appointed by Dean, Medical College, Nagpur on 12.06.1998,

pursuant to his selection on 19.08.1997 as Dental Surgeon in the

pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/-. But before that he had worked and

the total period of his service till 29.08.2000 is as shown below,

which is supported by the appointment orders produced by the

petitioner from Annexures E to E-11.

                                                     3                  wp1250.02.odt

         Date of                           Period                   Working days
       appointment




                                                                                






                                                        







                                                       







                                            

          1/6/1998
               -
                              ig   29/5/1998 to 26/6/1997
                                   30/6/1998 to 28/7/1998



                            



      



   

3. The petitioner then approached the Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal (MAT) by filing Original Application No.

558/2000 seeking directions that till the time regular candidate is

selected and appointed, he should be continued in the same

capacity namely; Ad Hoc Dentist. The MAT initially on

28.08.2000, passed the following order:

4 wp1250.02.odt

"Heard petitioner who is adhoc employee should not

be replaced by any other adhoc employee except bonded candidate, if there is post vacant and he has a requisite qualification. Also issue N.B.A. returnable 2

weeks. Hamdast allowed."

4. The respondents, without obtaining the modification of

the said order, as late as on 09.04.2001 appointed one Dr. Sandip

Gujar-respondent no.5 herein, in his place again by way of Ad hoc

appointee because admittedly, no candidate from the Maharashtra

Public Service Commission (M.P.S.C.) was sent. The post occupied

by the petitioner was, however, kept vacant for about 8 months

and the petitioner was not allowed to resume his duties even till

Dr.Sandip Gujar was appointed i.e. from 30.08.2000 till

08.04.2001 for no reason when there was clear cut direction in

addition issued by the Directorate of Medical Education on

24.02.2000 not to keep the post vacant in order that the patients

do not suffer. As per the Dental Surgeon Class-III Directorate of

Health Services Recruitment Rules, 1990, examination for

recruitment for the post is necessary. However, stop gap,

temporary or ad hoc appointments are permitted to be made till

5 wp1250.02.odt

receipt of the selected candidates vide rule (3) thereof. The

services of the petitioner were, however, terminated in order to

favour respondent no.5-Dr. Sandip Gujar by showing that he was

appointed as a bonded candidate and, therefore, he replaced the

petitioner. The petitioner had already applied for the post of

Dental Surgeon through M.P.S.C. but since the M.P.S.C. did not

declare any examination, he should have been continued in the

service. At any rate, appointment of Dr. Sandip Gujar was only up

to 12.02.2002 and at least thereafter the petitioner should have

been continued in service. The petitioner then filed the instant

petition and during the pendency of the writ petition, certain

developments took place, which the petitioner brought by way of

amendment to this petition in paragraph nos. 18A and 18B along

with documents. The averments in the amended petition have not

been refuted. He was then given appointment w.e.f. 22.04.2004 to

21.03.2005 and was again appointed by order dated 18.01.2006.

However, suddenly w.e.f 20.07.2007, he was discontinued from

service and was thus rendered jobless for no reasons when the

posts were available. In the month of November-2008, pursuant

to the advertisement for the post of Dental Surgeon, he applied

but he was not allowed to appear for the interview not being in

6 wp1250.02.odt

service. The petitioner has then stated in the amendment

application that the only reason given was that he was replaced by

Dr. Sandip Gujar, a bonded candidate when, as a matter of fact, he

was never so. Therefore, the very foundation of his appointment

was without any basis and without verifying the correctness of the

claim that Dr. Sandip Gujar was appointed as a bonded candidate.

In support of the contention, the petitioner has filed the

information received by him under the Right to Information Act

that the certificate of Dr. Gujar of bonded candidate was never

issued nor was it issued by any competent authority. The

information received under the R. T. I. Act shows that no such

certificate, as claimed by Dr. Gujar, was ever issued by the

competent authority and, therefore, the petitioner was put to

miscarriage of justice. The petitioner then contends that he was

unjustifiably not continued in service as Ad hoc Dental Surgeon.

Not only that, in fact, he was entitled to be regularized in view of

decision of the Government vide Government Resolution No.NEC

1408/C.No.116/Medical Services dated 22.01.2009. He, therefore,

seeks a direction for regularizing him in service. He submits that

he came to know about the fraud played by Dr. Sandip Gujar and

other respondents in respect of certificate of bonded candidate

7 wp1250.02.odt

only after filing of the writ petition in this Court and that is how,

he has brought it on record.

5. Respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit-in-reply in

answer to the petition. Paragraph 8 thereof reads thus:

"8. It is submitted that the petitioner being a bonded candidate was initially appointed as a Dental

surgeon class-II Officer on temporary basis for 29 days w.e.f. 15.10.96 and some time for 120 days

through D.S.B. subject to certain conditions. It is

submitted that on perusal of the conditions No.5, it would clear that he was appointed as a bonded candidate."

Thus, it is stated in the said reply that the petitioner

was appointed as bonded candidate for a specific period. It is also

stated that respondent no.5 was also appointed as bonded

candidate by replacing the petitioner. Respondent nos. 2 and 3

filed affidavits dated 30.07.2012 and it is stated therein that

respondent no.5 alike the petitioner also was selected and

appointed through Divisional Selection Board and appointed again

on 24.11.2008 and is in employment.

                                                     8                     wp1250.02.odt

     ARGUMENTS:




                                                                                   

6. In support of the petition, the learned counsel for the

petitioner invited our attention to the various facts and documents

filed on record during the pendency of the writ petition and

submitted that the impugned order of the MAT is based only on

the fact that respondent no.5 was a bonded candidate, which

according to him, is totally false and baseless. According to him,

the information gathered under the R. T. I. Act clearly reveals that

no such certificate was issued in favour of respondent no.5. He,

therefore, submitted that the petitioner was unnecessarily put to

sufferance only because respondents wanted to favour Dr.Sandip

Gujar and if they wanted to favour him, they could have posted

him at some other place instead of putting the career of the

petitioner at stake. As to the allegations of his absence, the

petitioner has produced a letter issued by the peon Shri B. R.

Dubey, who has clearly written to the concerned incharge of the

Primary Health Centre at Saoner that though Dr. Dhage was

present on duty, his superiors asked him to write that he was

absent on 26.05.2007 by obtaining letter from him on 07.06.2007.

He then submitted that the petitioner was deprived of the

employment. He invited our attention to the resolution dated

9 wp1250.02.odt

22.01.2009 which provides for regularization of services of such

persons and particularly when the petitioner is a qualified Dental

Surgeon having worked from 1996 for so many years. He,

therefore, prayed for directions accordingly.

7. The learned A.G.P. in reply, submitted that this Court

itself had made an interim order on 11.09.2002 that the present

petitioner was replaced by respondent no.5 and, therefore, the

petition is rendered infructuous and may not be entertained. The

learned A.G.P. then prayed for dismissal of the writ petition in

view of subsequent events and the respondents are ready to

accommodate the petitioner since the candidates duly selected

from the M.P.S.C. have not been received till date. Therefore, till

such candidates are received, the petitioner would be appointed as

ad hoc. Similarly, counsel for respondent no.5 submitted that his

client was bonded candidate and is still in employment for so

many years. He should not be disturbed.

CONSIDERATION:

8. We have heard learned counsel for rival parties. We

have perused the entire record and the accompanying documents.

10 wp1250.02.odt

At the outset, we must express that there is a criminal neglect and

mismanagement on the part of the recruitment machinery with the

State Government in its Public Health Department, Medical

Colleges so also the Maharashtra Public Service Commission in

creating mess altogether in following the foul practice of

employing Doctors, Dental Surgeons on ad hoc basis without even

understanding the concept of ad hoc employment. The

Government preaches to others not to indulge in ad hocism, but

itself follows this unfair practice.

It cannot be disputed that Medical Doctors/Dental

Surgeons from the Government run colleges are educated at the

cost of the tax payer's money. It is also not in dispute that their

services are largely required also in rural areas. The petitioner

worked in rural area at Primary Health Centre, Saoner from 15-10-

1996 till 20.07.2007 after he became a Dental Surgeon from

Government Dental College, Nagpur in the year 1995. He was

asked to work on ad hoc basis for eleven years and it is still

expected that he should clear M.P.S.C. examination and interview

for regularization. Having rich experience of eleven years as

Dental Surgeon, should he asked to answer M.P.S.C. examination

and interview? Can the concept of 'ad hocism' be stretched to

11 wp1250.02.odt

employment as such over a decade? One can understand a few

years like two or three years for such an exercise of ad hocism. In

our opinion, experience shows that such a perilous practice of ad

hocism leads to favouritism, nepotism and a miasma of corruption.

We are compelled to observe how shabbily the petitioner has been

treated for the past two decades by drowning his skill and

experience instead of utilizing his services in rural or urban areas.

With the above preface, we proceed to determine the

issue involved in the present writ petition.

9. The meaning of word ad hoc as per the Black's Law

Dictionary (Ninth Edition) is as under :-

"Ad hoc : Formed for a particular purpose."

As per the Websters Comprehensive Dictionary

(Encyclopedic Edition), the meaning of word ad hoc is as under:

"With respect to this (particular thing); up to this time."

10. The apex Court stated thus in the case of Rattan Lal

and others ..vs.. State of Haryana and others; (1985) 4 SCC 43

1. In all these petitions the common question which arises for decision is whether it is open to the State Government to appoint teachers on an ad-hoc

12 wp1250.02.odt

basis at the commencement of an academic year and terminate their services before the commencement of

the next summer vacation or earlier to appoint them

again on an ad-hoc basis at the commencement of next academic year and to terminate their services before the commencement of the succeeding summer

vacation or earlier and to continue to do so year after year. A substantial number of such ad-hoc appointments are made in the existing vacancies

which have remained unfilled for three to four years.

It is the duty of the State Government to take steps to appoint teachers in those vacancies in accordance

with the rules as early as possible. The State Government of Haryana has failed to discharge that duty in these cases. It has been appointing teachers

for quite some time on an ad-hoc basis for short

periods as stated above without any justifiable reason. In some cases the appointments are made for a period of six months only and they are renewed after a break

of a few days. The number of teachers in the State of Haryana who are thus appointed on such ad-hoc basis is very large indeed. If the teachers had been

appointed regularly they would have been entitled to the benefits of summer vacation along with the salary and allowance payable in respect of that period and to all other privileges such as casual leave, medical leave, maternity leave etc. available to all the Government servants. These benefits are denied to

13 wp1250.02.odt

these ad-hoc teachers unreasonably on account of this pernicious system of appointment adopted by the

State Government. These ad-hoc teachers are

unnecessarily subjected to an arbitrary 'hiring and firing' policy. These teachers who constitute the bulk of the educated unemployed are compelled to accept

these jobs on an ad-hoc basis with miserable conditions of service. The government appears to be exploiting this situation. This is not a sound personnel

policy. It is bound to have serious repercussions on the

educational institutions and the children studying there. The policy of 'ad-hocism' followed by the State

Government for a long period has led to the breach of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. Such a situation cannot be permitted to last any longer. It is

needless to say that the State Government is expected

to function as a model employer.

2. .....

3. We strongly deprecate the policy of the

State Government under which 'ad-hoc' teachers are denied the salary and allowances for the period of the summer vacation by resorting to the fictional breaks

of the type referred to above. These 'ad-hoc' teachers shall be paid salary and allowances for the period of summer vacation as long as they hold the office under this order. Those who are entitled to maternity or medical leave, shall also be granted such leave in accordance with the rules."

14 wp1250.02.odt

11. It is, thus, clearly seen from the above Supreme Court

judgment that the Supreme Court minced no words in deprecating

the policy of the Government in indulging in 'ad hocism'. That was

a case of the teachers. Here, we are dealing with the case of a

qualified doctor i.e. Dental Surgeon who passed out his degree

course from the Government Dental College, Nagpur way back in

the year 1995 and was since then appointed on ad hoc basis and

continued to work as such till the year 2007 and, thereafter, was

deprived of the employment for no reasons and since then he is

without any job. It is not in dispute that firstly he was appointed

on 15.10.1996 and was given employment for 29 days, as is

evident from the chart, which we have reproduced in paragraph 2

of the judgment. The chart shows that from 15.10.1996 to

02.05.2000 i.e. for a bout 4 years, he was appointed for 29 days.

There is no explanation why he was appointed as above. But then

it clearly appears that the only object of giving him employment

for 29 days for four years was to prohibit him from claiming any

regularization in service clearly forgetting that the rules

themselves do not provide for regularization. But then with some

apprehension with some bureaucrats namely; that if one is given

employment for more than 29 days, he would start claiming

15 wp1250.02.odt

regularization, appears to be a figment of imagination without

even understanding that ultimately the affected people are the

people residing in the rural areas where he was working and that

they are wasting a Doctor/Dental Surgeon for whose education the

tax payer's money was spent by the Government. In the year

2000, the petitioner must have sensed that he would be again

terminated and might not be appointed as ad hoc Dental Surgeon.

That is why he went to the M.A.T. and the M.A.T. made an order

on 28.08.2000, which we have already reproduced that he should

not be replaced by any other ad hoc employee except the bonded

candidate. He was working as dental Surgeon at Primary Health

Centre, Saoner and was serving the rural population right from the

year 1996 and then he was protected by the aforesaid interim

order. But then for no reasons, he was kept out of employment for

about 8 months, contrary to the interim order and in fact none

was appointed in his place till 08.04.2001 and thus the

Government and its officers have been responsible in depriving the

rural population under Saoner Primary Health Cetnre for eight

months in providing medical services. Thereafter, on 09.04.2001,

Dr. Sandeep Gujar was appointed. The respondents have pleaded

that Dr. Sandeep Gujar was a bonded candidate and, therefore, he

16 wp1250.02.odt

was appointed as suggested by the M.A.T. in its interim order.

There appears to be a confusion in the mind of the respondents

themselves about this concept of bonded candidate. There is a

further confusion with the respondents as to the alleged rights or

privileges of the bonded candidates compared to the non-bonded

candidates. The respondents and the State Government appears to

have created a clear cut artificial class of the bonded candidates

and non bonded candidates, which does not have any foundation

or basis insofar as the consideration of employment on merits is

concerned. Nay, according to us, the same clearly violates Article

16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are under

impression that the candidates who are bonded are to be preferred

over the candidates who are non-bonded while giving

employment. If the non bonded candidates are also ready to work

in rural areas, why they could be denied employment? We find

no foundation and we deprecate this type of practice. If such a

practice is being adopted or continued, the same would be clearly

violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the

matter of public employment. In this case, exactly that has

happened. In response to the Original Application before the

M.A.T., the respondents came up with a stand that the

17 wp1250.02.odt

respondents appointed respondent no. 5, a candidate who was a

bonded candidate in place of the petitioner. Shockingly enough,

on the bare statement, without any verification and without any

evidence about correctness of the same, the M.A.T. readily

accepted the said stand and dismissed the original application filed

by the petitioner. We are saddened with this kind of approach of

the M.A.T. The reason is that in this case, the respondents

themselves have created a mess in respect of bonded and non

bonded candidates. The respondents have stated in affidavit-in-

reply to this petition in paragraph 8 as under:

"8. It is submitted that the petitioner being a bonded candidate was initially appointed as a Dental

Surgeon Class-II officer on temporary basis for 29 days w.e.f. 15.10.96 and some time for 120 days

through D.S.B. subject to certain conditions. It is submitted that on perusal of the conditions No.5 it would clear that he was appointed as a bonded candidate..."

12. From the above, it is clear that the respondents are

treating the petitioner as bonded candidate. If that is so, there is

no explanation as to why still he was not continued and why

18 wp1250.02.odt

respondent no.5-Dr. Gujar, replaced him. Secondly, there is no

mention anywhere as to who would issue certificate about the

bonded candidate. The reason is that the petitioner had

challenged the certificate dated 20.08.2001, issued by Dean,

Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur stating he was not competent

to issue said certificate and further as per the information gathered

under the R.T.I. Act, no such certificate was at all issued. The

information under the Right to Information Act clearly rejects the

certificate. In this background, we called the file from the Dean of

the Government Dental College and in the file of Dr.Sandip Gujar,

we found a printed bond having something filled therein. Insofar

as the petitioner is concerned, the file shows a printed bond but

nothing was filled therein, therefore, the Dean stated that he was

not bonded candidate. It is thus clear to us that there is no

definite procedure or a competent authority named by the

Government as to who would be competent to issue certificate of

bonded candidate and what is the evidentiary value of such a

certificate. That apart, it is further seen from the concept of the

bonded candidates that the bonded candidates are those

candidates, who are described in Government Resolution dated

24.09.1971 at item no. 9, which reads as under.

19 wp1250.02.odt

"9. .....Bonded candidates shall be posted in the vacancies in the rural areas and non-bounded

candidates in the vacancies according to Government

orders already issued depending on the posts and category of service applied for."

From reading of the above, we have not found

anywhere that the candidate like the petitioner, who was replaced

by respondent no.5-Dr. Gujar, should be removed and should not

be continued nor it is the stand taken anywhere that the petitioner

was never a bonded candidate. On the contrary, it appears from

the reading of the above that the bonded candidates are those

candidates, who are bound to work in the rural areas. The

petitioner was working in rural areas even though he was not

bonded candidate. But then there is no provision for replacement

of the petitioner, who was working in the Primary Health Centre

and there was no occasion to remove the petitioner from service

that too after five years to appoint in his post respondent no.5-

Dr. Gujar.

13. There is one more significant aspect which requires

consideration. The petitioner was given some memo and notices

that he was practicing privately in addition to his work and,

20 wp1250.02.odt

therefore, that was the reason he could not be given

reemployment. At the end of one year, however, an enquiry was

held against respondent no.5-Dr. Gujar, who was found guilty of

practicing privately. Thus, despite holding enquiry and recording

of findings against Dr.Gujar, he was continued in service and he

continues even now. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, no

such enquiry was held. On the contrary, there is a document on

record to show that the superiors at Primary Health Centre, Saoner

had shown the petitioner deliberately absent and that is what

given in writing by the peon Mr. Dubey about the petitioner. That

apart, when the respondents have not given any assurance of a

regular and clear employment to the Dental Surgeon like the

petitioner and if he practices privately, in addition to his duty at

the Primary Health Cetnre, what wrong is committed by him? We,

therefore, think that the reasons for not continuing the petitioner

in employment even after working for a decade on ad hoc basis,

are preposterous, beyond any sense of justice, equity and good

conscience. It is really unfortunate that despite warning contained

in the Supreme Court Judgment in Rattan Lal (supra), the

administration is still indulging in ad hocism insofar as Doctor/

Dental Surgeons are concerned. It is then noteworthy that after

21 wp1250.02.odt

the M.A.T. dismissed the Original Application, he filed writ

petition in this Court and this Court made an order that the

petitioner would be continued in as and when vacancy is available.

Even after the employment of respondent no.5-Dr. Gujar had

come to an end due to his misconduct on 12.02.2002, the

petitioner was not appointed and the post of Dental Surgeon at

Saoner was kept vacant, causing serious loss to the rural

population in not providing medical help, for which there is no

explanation.

14. Be that as it may. The petitioner was again appointed

on 22.04.2004 and continued to work till 20.07.2007 but for no

reasons again, he was discontinued and was rendered jobless. In

November-2008, he applied for the post of Dental Surgeon as per

the advertisement but surprisingly he was not allowed to appear

on the ground that he was not in employment. Thus, there was a

clear intention to waste a doctor, who got educated by the

Government at the cost of public money. We have thus found that

though several posts were available in the State of Maharashtra,

the petitioner was never appointed after 2007. This petition

remained pending in this Court and in the meanwhile, the

22 wp1250.02.odt

petitioner filed another criminal Writ Petition No.415/2015

against the Government and its officers saying that false certificate

about respondent no.5-Dr. Gujar was issued. As we have discussed

above, the respondents themselves are confused about the issue of

bonded candidates. Be that as it may. We do not want to dilate

on the said issue any further. We have, however, come to the firm

conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to be continued in

employment as ad hoc Dental Surgeon and because respondent

no.5-Dr. Sandip Gujar was continued even till this date in the

same capacity, who was junior to the petitioner and who replaced

him for no reasons, we must remove the injustice done to the

petitioner.

15. The next question is working out the relief for the

petitioner. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has claimed several reliefs

before us including the award of back wages etc. In fact, the

petitioner and his counsel were pressing hard for back wages from

the Government but then we openly declined the request, all the

more so because an undertaking has been filed by the respondents

saying therein that the petitioner wold be appointed again on ad

hoc basis w.e.f. 01.09.2015 and would be continued without any

23 wp1250.02.odt

disturbance. Thus, the issue about his reinstatement has come to

an end and since we have declined to grant him any back wages,

that issue also has come to an end.

16. The next issue is about his regularization in service. We

have already held that there cannot be ad hocism for so many

years, which is contrary to the very concept of ad hocism. The

petitioner has an experience of 20 years by now and we do not

want that because of the whims and fancies of the Government

agencies and the M.P.S.C., the people at large should suffer.

There is a Government Resolution dated 22.01.2009, that was

issued by the Government and the decision taken in that

Government Resolution is as under:

"As mentioned in the preface, the temporary services

of Professors/Dental Surgeons, who were either in continuous or discontinuous service as on 15.01.2009, i.e. those who having been appointed in

service till 15.01.2007 by temporary appointment and at the time of issuance of this resolution were working, shall be regularized as special case in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 of Class-B of Maharashtra Medial Education and Research Services"

24 wp1250.02.odt

17. The resolution shows that those who are in

employment on temporary/ad hoc basis as on 15.01.2007, would

be regularized in service as special case. Now, admittedly, the

petitioner was in employment till 20.07.2007 and was thereafter

again appointed on 15.10.2007 but then it was falsely shown that

he was absent from the duty and despite his representations, was

not allowed to work form 15.10.2007 onwards till date. The fact,

however, remains that as on the relevant date 15.01.2007, he was

appointed and was in the employment and, therefore, his case is

fully covered by the said Government Resolution. We, therefore,

find that the petitioner must be given the benefit of the said

Government Resolution for being regularized in service. Apart

from the said resolution, we think that the petitioner having the

experience of two decades as Dental Surgeon, should not be asked

to face the M.P.S.C. and must be regularised. There cannot be 'ad

hocism' for twenty years.

18. The next question is about gap due to the period of his

unemployment as ad hoc Dental Surgeon. The first appointment

of the petitioner as ad hoc Dental Surgeon was w.e.f. 15.10.1996,

while that of respondent no.5-Dr. Sandip Gujar was from

25 wp1250.02.odt

09.04.2001 (Page 180). Thus, the petitioner was far senior to

respondent no.5. As it is clear that after replacement of the

petitioner by respondent no.5-Dr. Gujar, the petitioner should

have been again appointed from 12.02.2002 when services of

respondent no.5-Dr. Gujar were discontinued for misconduct. The

petitioner was however appointed on 22.02.2004 till 20.07.2007

and, thereafter, till date on false reasons, he was not allowed to

work though was again appointed on 15.10.2007. It is, thus, clear

that the petitioner would be entitled to continuity of service, of

course, only as ad hoc Dental Surgeon alike others for the above

entire period since during the pendency of this writ petition, the

respondents failed to appoint him, despite interim order made by

this Court. But the respondents continued respondent no.5-Dr.

Gujar till date. The petitioner must also be given continuity in

service till 01.09.2015 i.e. his reemployment, as undertaken by the

Government. We, thus, hold and declare that the petitioner is

entitled to continuity of service from 15.10.1996 till 01.09.2015

and the respondents are directed to issue an order of continuity of

service accordingly to him. The petitioner shall not be then liable

to face M.P.S.C. and his services shall be regularized in accordance

with said Government Resolution dated 22.01.2009. We further

26 wp1250.02.odt

make it clear that we are not disturbing services of respondent

no.5-Dr. Sandip Gujar.

19. In view of above, we make the following order:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition No. 1250/2002 is allowed.

(ii) Impugned order dated 24.12.2001 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original

Application No.558/2000 is quashed and set aside. Instead, Original Application No. 558/2000 is allowed.

(iii) It is declared that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in employment as ad hoc Dental Surgeon

right from the date of his removal as such w.e.f.

08.04.2001 till his reinstatement as ad hoc Dental Surgeon on 01.09.2015 but without any emoluments or any back wages or other benefits involving monetary

benefits and further that he being in employment as on 15.01.2007, is entitled to regularization as per Government Resolution No.NEC 1408/C.No.116/

Medical Services etc. dated 22.01.2009 and consequently shall not be asked to face the M.P.S.C.

(iv) The respondents are directed to count services of the petitioner for the period from 08.04.2001 to 01.09.2015 only as ad hoc Dental Surgeon but

27 wp1250.02.odt

without any emoluments or back wages or other monetary benefits and regularize his service in terms of

Government Resolution No.NEC 1408/C.No.116/

Medical Services etc. dated 22.01.2009 as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within six months from today. Failure on the part of the respondents to

regularize services of the petitioner within six months as per the Government Resolution dated dated 22.01.2009 shall automatically result into payment of salary and

allowances to the petitioner after six months as regular

Government Dental Surgeon and he shall be paid accordingly.

                                      JUDGE                       JUDGE
      


     kahale