IMPORTANT POINT
After having accepted contractual appointment respondents are estopped from challenging terms of their appointment.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. This batch of appeals has been filed against the order dated 28.03.2012 and other impugned orders passed by the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad whereby 471 posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors created by Government Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006 for appointment on contractual basis under the Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai, were held to be permanent in nature. For convenience, appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.34788-34789 of 2012 are taken as the lead case.

3. State of Maharashtra vide Government Resolution dated 21.08.2006 approved creation of 471 posts in various cadres including Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors under the establishment of Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai. As per clause (3) of the said Government Resolution, the posts shall be filled up on contractual basis as per the terms and conditions prescribed by the Government. By a subsequent Resolution dated 15.09.2006, the Government maintained that 471 posts created vide resolution dated 21.08.2006 shall be filled up on contractual basis by payment of consolidated pay. As per the conditions of service laid down in the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006, the appointment was initially for eleven months and with a provision of extension up to maximum of three terms each term being of eleven months. After expiry of third term, the candidates are required to face fresh selection process once again. After the expiry of the term of respondents, their appointments automatically came to an end. In pursuance of the expiry of terms of respondents, the State issued fresh advertisements for recruitment of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors on 05.12.2009, 13.01.2010 etc.

4. On expiry of the contractual period and being aggrieved by publication of fresh advertisement, the respondents approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenging the conditions in the Government Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006, which laid down that the appointment of the law officers/law instructors shall be contractual, is arbitrary and that the respondents should have been appointed on regular pay scale and not on consolidated pay. The tribunal partly allowed the claim of the respondents and the tribunal struck down those provisions by holding that clause (3) of the Government Resolution dated 21.08.2006 and the clauses 'A', 'B', and 'C' in the Government Resolution dated 15.9.2006 suffered from arbitrariness and unreasonableness. However, no direction was issued by the tribunal directing the State Government to regularise the respondents.

5. Aggrieved thereof, respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court seeking for a direction to the State Government to regularise their services. State Government also filed writ petition challenging the order of the tribunal striking down the clauses in the said Government Resolutions as arbitrary and for setting aside the order of the tribunal.

6. The High Court vide impugned judgment dismissed all the writ petitions filed by the State Government as well as by the respondents.

The High Court took the view that 471 posts created by the State Government in various cadres are permanent posts and thus the appointments thereon must also be permanent. However, considering the fact that the appointment of the respondents were not made in regular manner under the constitutional scheme, the High Court held that the respondents/original applicants cannot claim permanency and/or regularisation.

7. Being aggrieved, the State as well as the applicants have preferred these appeals. Vide order dated 02.11.2012, this Court has granted stay of operation of the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2012 passed by the High Court as well as the order dated 06.05.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench and this Court directed