Bombay High Court
Rajesh Nagorao Dehankar vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 29 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment 1 wp913.02+3.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 913 OF 2002
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1251 OF 2002
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1367 OF 2002
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1385 OF 2002
W.P.NO. 913/2002.
Dr. Rajesh S/o. Nagorao Dehankar,
Aged 28 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Popular Housing Society,
Wadi, Nagpur, District : Nagpur.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
thropugh its Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
& Research, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Dean,
Government Medical College,
Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
WITH
W.P.NO. 1251/2002.
Dr. Ashutosh S/o. Sudhakar Mangalgiri,
aged about 26 years, Occu.: Service,
As an Assistant Lecturer, Department of
Anatomy G.M.C., Nagpur, R/o. Plot No.81,
Baji Prabhu Nagar, Behind Sarweshwar
Temple, Near Ram Nagar, Nagpur-10.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
::: Uploaded on - 31/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2017 00:49:48 :::
Judgment 2 wp913.02+3.odt
1. The State of Maharashtra,
thropugh its Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Dean,
Govt. Medical College,
Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
WITH
W.P.NO. 1367/2002.
Dr. Vivek Murlichar Gajbhiye,
aged about 28 years, Occu.: Service
Department of Anatomy G.M.C., Nagpur,
R/o. Nagpur-3.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
thropugh its Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
& Research, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Dean,
Government Medical College,
Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
WITH
W.P.NO. 1385/2002.
Dr. Smt. Manjusha D/o. Keshaorao Tabhane,
aged about 31 years, Occu.: Service as
Asstt. Lecturer, Deptt. Of Anatomy,
G.M.C., Nagpur, R/o. Plot No.16,
Pratapnagar, Nagpur-10.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
::: Uploaded on - 31/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2017 00:49:48 :::
Judgment 3 wp913.02+3.odt
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Thropugh : Its Secretary,
Deptt. of Medical Education
Mantralaya, MUMBAI-32.
2. The Dean,
Govt. Medical College,
Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
None for the petitioners.
Shri A.V.Palshikar, Ms Tajwar Khan and Ms Shamsi Haider, A.G.Ps. for
Respondents.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ, JJ.
DECIDED ON : MAY 29, 2017.
JUDGMENT (PER : B.P.Dharmadhikari, J):
1. Nobody appears for the petitioners. Respective A.G.Ps.
appear for the respondents.
2. The registry has accordingly made available the judgment
delivered in 19 matters including about 4 matters on 8th August, 2003.
3. There, after hearing the respective counsel for the
petitioners and AGPs, the impugned order passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal has been partially modified. Identical order of
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has been questioned in the
present petitions.
Judgment 4 wp913.02+3.odt
4. We find that the petitioner in W.P.No. 913 of 2003 Dr.
Rajesh had approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A.
No. 612 of 2001. Similarly, petitioner Dr. Vivek in W.P. No.1367 of
2002 appraoched Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.611
of 2001 and Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1385 of 2002 appraoched
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 610 of 2002.
5. Petitioner Dr. Ashutosh in W.P. No. 1351 of 2002 has
appraoched this Court directly without filing any case before
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. However, relief sought by him is
identical.
6. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has passed same
orders in all matters before it and few matters (mentioned supra) have
been partly allowed on 8th August, 2003 by this Court. The relief
granted by this Court to the petitioners on 8th August, 2003 is as
under:
"In the result, writ petitions are partly
allowed.
We declare that the petitioners, who are ad
hoc appointees shall not be replaced by another set
of ad hoc appointees, whether bonded or non-
bonded.
To the extent the orders passed by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal are in conflict
Judgment 5 wp913.02+3.odt
with the above declaration, they shall stand quashed
and set aside.
We reject the claim of the petitioners who are
ad hoc appointees, to regularisation. Rule is made
absolute in the above terms. There shall be no orders
as to costs."
It is obvious that in view of this adjdication the petitioners
before us may have been also treated similarly by now by the State
Government. However, by way of abundant caution, with similar
directions, we partly allow the present writ petitions and make Rule
absolute accordingly. No costs.
(Z.A.HAQ, J.) (B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
RRaut..
