Bombay High Court
Dr. Mohd. Nayeem Akhtar vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary, ... on 16 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp1085.13.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1085/2013
PETITIONER: Dr. Mohd. Nayeem Akhtar,
Aged 48 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o New Yerkheda, Tah - Kamthee,
Dist - Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department of Technical
Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Director of Education (Higher Education),
M.S. Central Building, Pune - 01.
3. The Director, Vasantrao Naik Government Arts
and Social Science Institute, Zero Mile Stone,
Sitabuldi, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 16.03.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 14.1.2011 dismissing the
original application filed by the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as
a lecturer for the subject of Urdu on 4.11.2003 for a period of one year on
wp1085.13.odt
ad hoc basis. It is the case of the petitioner that the post of lecturer is
required to be filled from the Maharashtra Public Service Commission
(M.P.S.C.) and since the M.P.S.C. had not recommended any candidates
during the relevant years, the petitioner was appointed in the respondent
no.3 - College as a lecturer. Since the services of the petitioner were
discontinued on the expiry of the term of his employment in the year
2006, the petitioner had filed the original application seeking a direction
against the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in the
post of lecturer or in the alternative, not to replace the petitioner by any
other ad hoc employee. The original application filed by the petitioner was
dismissed by the impugned order, dated 14.1.2011.
In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others...Versus...Umadevi (3)
and others, reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Tribunal
rightly held that the petitioner's services could not have been regularized
as the petitioner was not appointed by following the due procedure
prescribed by law and his selection was not made by the M.P.S.C. The
petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of one year and
thereafter he was continued from year to year about three years only on
ad hoc basis as the selection of regular candidates was not made by the
M.P.S.C. The petitioner is said to be out of service after 2006 and though
wp1085.13.odt
we had admitted this writ petition on 4.3.2013, we had not granted any
interim relief in favour of the petitioner. In view of the judgment in the
case of Umadevi (Supra), the services of the petitioner could not have
been regularized. Had the petitioner been in service on ad hoc basis from
year to year, we may have directed the respondents to consider retaining
the petitioner in service on ad hoc basis till the M.P.S.C. selects a
candidate and he is appointed on the post of lecturer in the respondent
no.3 - College. However, it is brought to our notice that the petitioner is
not working in the respondent no.3 - College since the year 2006.
Hence, in the circumstances of the case, since the
petitioner's services cannot be regularized and since the petitioner is not
continued after 2006 even on ad hoc basis, the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
Hence, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to
costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
