Bombay High Court
Rajkumar S/O Uttamrao Lekurwale vs State Of Maharashtra & Another on 26 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 5915/05 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 5915/2005
Rajkumar s/o. Uttamrao Lekurwale,
Aged about 49 years, Occ.: Advocate,
R/o Zingabai Takli, Ward No.1, Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
Home Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
Through its Secretary.
2. The Director General of Police,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai. RESPONDENTS
ig None for the petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
: 26 TH OCTOBER, 2016.
DATE
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 15.07.2005 dismissing the
original application filed by the petitioner.
2. On hearing the learned Additional Government Pleader and
on a perusal of the order of the tribunal, it appears that the tribunal was
justified in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner for a
direction to the respondents to post the petitioner as a Police Prosecutor-
Assistant Public Prosecutor. The petitioner was appointed as a Police
Prosecutor temporarily on 10.06.1988. The appointment of the petitioner
WP 5915/05 2 Judgment
as a Police Prosecutor was purely on temporary basis. While the
petitioner was working as a Police Prosecutor, he applied for the post of
Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) and was
selected and appointed on the said post by the order dated 21.11.1990.
After serving for nearly three years on the post of Civil Judge (Junior
Division), the services of the petitioner were terminated by the order
dated 04.11.1993. After the services of the petitioner were terminated,
he filed the original application with the prayer that a direction be issued
to the respondents to again post him as a Police Prosecutor as he had
established his lien on the post of Police Prosecutor. Since the claim of
the petitioner could not have been granted in terms of the temporary
appointment of the petitioner as a Police Prosecutor as per the order of
appointment and the petitioner could not have held a lien on the post of
Police Prosecutor in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil
Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, the tribunal rightly held
that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed. Since the
petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis as a Police Prosecutor
and since his services were liable to be terminated without assigning any
reason or ground, the tribunal rightly held that the petitioner could not
have held a lien on the post, as for holding a lien, an employee needs to
be appointed on a substantive post. The order of the tribunal appears to
be just and proper and there is no reason to interfere with the same in
exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
WP 5915/05 3 Judgment
3. Hence, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.
Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
