Ashish M. Mahalle, Amravati & 12 ... vs State Of Maharashtra Mumbai & 2 ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3626 Bom

                                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

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

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

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

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