Bombay High Court
Manisha D/O Manohar Ingale vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 22 December, 2023
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
2023:BHC-NAG:17570-DB
1/5 wp.2949.22-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2949/2022
Manisha D/o. Manohar Ingale,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. - Service,
R/o. 21, LIC Colony, Near Keval Colony,
Shegaon Rahatgaon Road, Post VMV, PETITIONER
Amravati - 444604.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director,
Technical Education Directorate 3,
Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai - 440001.
3. The Principal,
Government College of Engineering,
Amravati, Tah. and Dist. Amravati. RESPONDENTS
Mr. P. V. Thakre, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Pendke, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI AND
MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 07.12.2023.
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.12.2023.
JUDGMENT :
[PER : MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.]
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of the parties.
2/5 wp.2949.22-J.odt
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.09.2021
passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench
dismissing the Original Application No.450/2017 filed by the petitioner.
Her appointment as a Lecturer as per the directions passed on 19.10.2013
in Writ Petition No.2046/2010 and Government Resolution dated
13.05.2015.
3. By order dated 19.09.2008 the respondent No.2 appointed
the petitioner as an Assistant Professor on contractual basis with
respondent No.3 - Government College of Engineering, Amravati. The
respondent No.2 extended the contractual appointment from time to time.
The petitioner was in continuous service since 2008 till 2014 with
technical breaks. By order dated 19.10.2013 in Writ Petition
No.2046/2010 (Sachin Ambadas Dawale and Ors. Vs. Principal Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education and Anr .) this Court had directed the
respondents to absorb the petitioner within a period of six weeks.
4. On 30.09.2014, the respondent No.3 issued an official order
thereby terminating the contractual services of the petitioner along with
some other employees. The Principal of the Government Engineering
College - respondent No.3 pressurized the petitioner to give resignation.
Since the term of petitioner was already over, there was no need for the
3/5 wp.2949.22-J.odt
respondent No.3 to get the resignation of the petitioner. The petitioner has
submitted her resignation on 31.12.2014.
5. The Government Resolution passed on 13.03.2015 directing
that all the contractual lecturers, who have worked for more than three
years and in service in the College would be given permanent
appointment. The Government Resolution was issued on the basis of the
judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2046/2010. The
petitioner was in service and had also completed her three years
continuous service and, therefore, her name was mentioned in the list
attached with the Government Resolution at Serial No.49.
6. The petitioner has issued a letter on 03.04.2015 for
withdrawal of her resignation letter dated 31.12.2014 explaining the
reason for withdrawing the resignation. By reply dated 09.04.2015, the
Principal of Government College showed his inability to allow her to
withdraw the resignation letter. The name of the petitioner was not
mentioned in Government Resolution dated 30.05.2015 passed by the
respondent No.1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Government
Resolution dated 30.05.2015 in which the name of the petitioner was not
mentioned, approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur
by filing Original Application No.450/2017. The Administrative Tribunal
has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and therefore, the
4/5 wp.2949.22-J.odt
petitioner has filed this petition before this Court challenging the order of
the Administrative Tribunal.
7. The respondents have filed reply and denied the contents of
the petition stating that the order passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal is correct. The petitioner has resigned herself and
after the judgment passed in the Writ Petition No.2046/2010, she has filed
the application for withdrawal of said resignation.
8. Heard both the learned Counsel.
9. The petitioner was appointed on contractual basis with
technical break of one day. Every time the fresh appointment order was
issued. On 30.09.2014 the petitioner was lastly relieved from the
contractual appointment. Thereafter, fresh contractual appointment order
was issued on 01.10.2014. However, the petitioner did not join the service
on account of personal reason and resigned by sending a resignation letter
dated 31.12.2014. As per the order of this Court in Writ Petition
No.2046/2010, the services of the employees who were in continuous
employment till 15.10.2013 were directed to be regularized. At the time
of issuance of Government Resolution dated 13.03.2015, the petitioner
was not in employment and had resigned from service in the year 2014,
therefore, the question of regularization of service of the petitioner did not
5/5 wp.2949.22-J.odt
arise. As per the direction, the respondent No.1 regularized the services of
contractual and ad-hoc lecturers working in Government Engineering
College, Government Polytechnic and Government Pharmacy Institute and
those who had completed three years of service on 31.01.2015. The
petitioner on her own has resigned her contractual employment, which
was on the temporary basis on 31.12.2014. The resignation clearly shows
that it was on the personal ground. The appointment of the petitioner
right from inception was on contractual basis. As she has on her own
resigned the service and not joined the contractual service, the petitioner
cannot be claimed continuity in service in the light of the Government
Resolution dated 13.03.2015. It appears that the name of the petitioner is
mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 13.03.2015. However, the
petitioner was not in service, at the time of passing the resolution, it was
corrected by Government Resolution dated 30.05.2015. As the petitioner
was not in service at the time of passing the Resolution and she on her
own resigned the service, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of
the order passed by this Court for continuity in service.
10. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
RGurnule.
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/12/2023 16:25:50
