Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Medical ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 7 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp2284.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2284 OF 2015
Maharashtra State Medical Teachers
Association, through its Member
Shri Dr. Prashant Lalitrao Patil,
Government Medical College,
Nagpur 440 003. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtraig
through its Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
and Drugs, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Director,
Medical Education and Research,
Government Dental College and
Hospital, 4th Floor, Saint George
Hospital Premises, Demelo Road,
Fort, Mumbai. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. M.S. Naik, AGP for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
MARCH 07, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of Shri Kilor, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Naik, learned AGP for the respondents.
2. An association of Medical Teachers is before this Court
pointing out that though qualified Doctors are available,
recruitment is being avoided and existing staff is being given
extension of one year on each occasion.
3. We need not go into the niceties of the challenge as we
find that this Court has passed an order on 15.12.2014 in Writ
Petition No. 6685 of 2015, which has attained finality. That order
reads thus :
"Heard.
The only relief sought by the petitioner- Association
is a direction to respondent No.1 to take immediate steps
to fill the posts of Associate Professor by direct
recruitment as well as promotion in all the Government
Medical Colleges in the State of Maharashtra.
Learned Government Pleader Mrs. Bharti Dangre,
on instructions from the Secretary, Medical Education
and Drugs Department states that the process to fill the
posts by direct recruitment has already commenced after
the advertisement is issued through the Maharashtra
Public Service Commission. It is stated that the posts
would be filled in by nomination latest by 31/03/2015.
It is stated that immediately after the posts are filled by
nomination, steps would be initiated by the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 to fill the posts by promotion as the entire
picture would be clear by then.
In view of the statement made by the learned
Government Pleader, the grievance of the petitioner
stands redressed.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of by
accepting the statement made on behalf of the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2, which would be binding on them. There
would be no order as to costs."
4. The respondents, through Respondent No. 2, have filed
an affidavit before this Court vide Stamp No. 2820 of 2016. In it,
they have pointed out that steps to effect recruitment have already
been undertaken. However, the date of advertisement mentioned
therein is 15.12.2014. Obviously, it is prior to the time limit given
by this court in its order dated 15.12.2014 mentioned supra.
5. The respondents in Writ Petition No. 6685 of 2014
undertook to fill in all vacancies latest by 31.03.2015. Obviously,
this was after advertisement dated 15.12.2014. In spite of this, on
05.03.2015, they have issued an order extending the age of
superannuation by one more year. Thus, all teachers due to retire
get one more year.
6. We, therefore, find substance in the contention of Shri
Kilor, learned counsel that for extraneous reasons, the extensions
are being given. However, now when March 2016 is about to end,
the further extension may have become inevitable. The post of
Teachers cannot be allowed to lie vacant. We, therefore, find that
interest of justice can be met with by directing the respondents to
complete recruitment in accordance with law by 30.09.2016.
7. We have taken note of the fact that an affidavit filed by
Respondent No. 2 vide Stamp No. 2820 of 2016 does not disclose
any new development and is on same lines as the one which has
been looked into by this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No.
6685 of 2014. We, therefore, direct the respondents, not to grant
any extension to any Teacher beyond 30.09.2016.
8. With these directions and keeping all rival contentions
open, we dispose of the present petition. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
