Bombay High Court
Vaibhav Deorao Kamble vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 16 August, 2024
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, M.S. Jawalkar
2024:BHC-NAG:9117-DB
Judgment 1 56wp6480.23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6480/2023
Dr. Vaibhav Deorao Kamble,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. 102, Nandita Apartment, 80-81
Samajbhushan Society, Manish Nagar,
Somalwada, Nagpur
.... PETITIONER(S)
// VERSUS //
(1) State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Medical Education & Drugs,
9th Floor, G.T. Hospital Campus,
Lokmanya Tilak Road, Mantralaya, Mumbai-01
(2) Director of Medical Education & Research,
Govt. Dental College & Hospital Building,
St. George Hospital Compound, CST,
Mumbai-01
(3) Dean,
Government Dental College & Hospital,
Nagpur-09
.... RESPONDENT(S)
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
Mr. R.V. Shiralkar, Advocate for the Petitioner(s)
Ms. T.H. Khan, AGP for the Respondents/State
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
..ANSARI..
Judgment 2 56wp6480.23.odt
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
AUGUST 16, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (PER: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
(1) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
(2) The Petition challenges the judgment dated 24/08/2023
passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as "MAT") declining to issue a direction
to the Respondents to consider the claim of the Petitioner for
regularization of his employment in terms of the Cabinet
decision dated 01/06/2017 (Page 66).
(3) On 13/08/2024, the following position was recorded:-
"2. The only reason, why the petitioner has not been considered
for granting benefit of regularization under the Government
Resolution dated 15.06.2017 (Page 70) is, that the petitioner has
not worked for a period of 24 months prior to 01.08.2014, as the
petitioner was not engaged for a period of more than 16 months
between the period from 11.03.2010 to 04.05.2013 (Page 283).
..ANSARI..
Judgment 3 56wp6480.23.odt
3. Mr Shiralkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that
for the purpose of regularization, what is necessary to be
considered is the engagement of the petitioner for a total period
of two years, for the purpose of calculating which, a period of
three months is condonable, irrespective of the fact as to when
the breaks have taken place. He therefore submits, that
considering this position the table at Page 283, would indicate,
that the petitioner has worked for total period of 22 months
commencing from 01.08.2009 till 01.08.2014 and therefore, in
terms of Clause 7 (Page 70) of the aforesaid GR dated
15.06.2017, was entitled to a condonation of two months, which
would make the petitioner entitled to be considered for
regularization. The regularization of the petitioner has been
rejected on the ground, that the three months period which is to
be condoned has to be continuous."
(4) Clause 4(3) (Page 69) and Clause 4(7) (Page 70) of the
Cabinet decision dated 01/06/2017, being material, are
reproduced as under:-
"(३) तात्पुरत्या नियुक्त्तीने कार्यरत उमेदवारांच्या सेवा नियमित
करतांना त्यांना त्या त्या पदावर काम केल्याचा अनभ
ु व असणे
अत्यावश्यक आहे . त्यामळ
ु े किमान २ वर्षांचा अनभ
ु व धारण करणाऱ्या
उमेदवारांचा विचार करण्यात यावा. यासाठी दिनांक १/८/२०१४ पर्वी
ु
..ANSARI..
Judgment 4 56wp6480.23.odt
नियक्
ु त झालेल्या तसेच दि. २२.१०.२०१६ पर्यंत कार्यरत असणे
आवश्यक आहे . दि. १.८.२०१४ तत्पर्वी
ू विभागीय निवडमंडळ परु स्कृत
उमेदवार म्हणून तात्पुरती नियुक्ती झालेल्या उमेदवारांचा प्रस्तावात
समावेश करण्यात यावा.
(७) काही प्रकरणांत असे निदर्शनास आले आहे की, उमेदवार तात्पुरत्या
नियक्
ु तीने कार्यरत आहे व सेवा बजावण्याची त्याची इच्छाही आहे . मात्र
बंधपत्रीत उमेदवारांना प्राधान्याने नियुक्त्या दे ण्यात येणे वा अन्य
कोणत्याही प्रशासकीय कारणास्तव त्याची तात्पुरती सेवा खंडीत
करण्यात आली असेल अथवा एक तात्पुरती नियुक्ती संपल्यानंतर
अनज्ञ
ु ेय असणारी दस
ु री तात्परु ती नियक्
ु ती दे ण्यात आली नसेल व संधी
मिळताच उमेदवार पुन्हा तात्पुरत्या नियुक्तीने कार्यरत झाला असेल,
अशा प्रकरणी प्रशासकीय कारणास्तव झालेला कमाल ३ महिन्यांपर्यंतचा
खंड क्षमापित करण्यात यावा. तथापि सदर प्रशासकीय खंड जेवढ्या
दिवसांचा असेल तेवढी सेवा उमेदवाराने दिनांक १/८/२०१४ पर्वी
ू
बजावलेली असणे आवश्यक आहे ."
(5) The number of days for which the Petitioner has worked
are indicated in the Table at Internal Page 3 of the impugned
judgment dated 24/08/2023, which would indicate that the
Petitioner was engaged before 01/08/2014 from time to time and
as on 22/10/2016, was continued to be engaged, in view of the
..ANSARI..
Judgment 5 56wp6480.23.odt
order of the learned MAT dated 18/01/2016 protecting his
employment, which has continued till today.
(6) The contention of the learned AGP for non-consideration of
the claim of the Petitioner in terms of the Cabinet decision dated
01/06/2017 (Page 70), is that the period of three months, which
can be condoned, has to be continuous and therefore, on this
count, she justifies the impugned judgment. She further submits
that the Petitioner, in terms of the Clause 4(3) of the Cabinet
decision dated 01/06/2017, ought to have been in employment
on 22/10/2016, which she was not, on account of which, the
impugned judgment of the learned MAT is justified.
(7) A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned
MAT indicates that the language of Clauses 4(3) and 4(7) of the
Cabinet decision dated 01/06/2017 has not been considered in its
correct perspective, inasmuch as, it denies the consideration of
regularization to the Petitioner on the ground that there was a
break of 16 months in his employment, and therefore, since three
..ANSARI..
Judgment 6 56wp6480.23.odt
months' condonation has to be continuous in nature, the claim
was rightly not referred for regularization.
(8) In our considered opinion, the language of Clause 4(3) of
the Cabinet decision dated 01/06/2017 requires a candidate to
have minimum two years experience/employment and has to be
have been engaged prior to 01/08/2014 and was to be in
employment on 22/10/2016. For the purpose of calculating the
previous employment, Clause 4(7) of the Cabinet decision dated
01/06/2017 mandates, that a total condonation of three months'
period is permissible. The language of Clause 4(7) of the Cabinet
decision dated 01/06/2017 does not indicate that this three
months' period has to be counted in continuation, rather on the
contrary, it indicates that the period has to be considered in its
totality, by taking into consideration any number of breaks,
which have been given to the Employee. The wordings used are
"deky 3 efgU;kai;aZrpk [kaM" which would justify the above
interpretation.
..ANSARI..
Judgment 7 56wp6480.23.odt
(9) A perusal of the chart of employment of the Petitioner, as
quoted in the impugned judgment dated 24/08/2023 at record
Page 283, would indicate that the Petitioner was already
employed prior to 01/08/2014. The total duration of
employment of the Petitioner from 01/08/2009 to 01/08/2014
was a period of 22 months and 11 days. If 3 months' period
which was liable to be condoned in terms of Clause 4(7) of the
Cabinet decision dated 01/06/2017 was added to this, it is
apparent that the Petitioner then completed the period of two
years in terms of the combined and meaningful reading of
Clauses 4(3) and 4(7) of the Cabinet decision dated 01/06/2017.
It would, therefore, be apparent that the Petitioner clearly
satisfied the requirement as contained in Clauses 4(3) and 4(7) of
the Cabinet decision dated 01/06/2017, in view of which, the
claim of the Petitioner ought to have been sent by the
Respondent No. 3 to the Respondent No. 1 - State for the purpose
of regularization of the employment of the Petitioner.
(10) Accordingly, the following order is passed:-
..ANSARI..
Judgment 8 56wp6480.23.odt
ORDER
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 23/08/2021 (Page 81)
passed by the Respondent No. 1 as well as the judgment
dated 24/08/2023 (Page 281) passed by the learned MAT
are hereby quashed and set aside.
(c) The Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the
claim of the Petitioner for regularization and in case, there
is no other impediment, grant the same within a period of
eight weeks from today.
(d) Till such time the claim is considered, interim order
dated 26/09/2023 which protects the employment of the
Petitioner, shall continue.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending
Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Signed by: A.P. ANSARI
..ANSARI..
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/08/2024 15:52:58
