SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 809

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Arun R. Pedneker, Ravindra V. Ghuge, JJ.
Sharad S/o. Prahakar Sonwane & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7520 Of 2022, Writ Petition No.7578 Of 2022
Decided On : 12-08-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. P.S. Talekar, M/s. Talekar.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.G. Sangle, Mr. Maheshkumar S. Sonawane.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that temporary employees cannot claim regularisation once their appointment period expires, and erroneous regularisation of other employees does not create a right for parity.

Headnote:

Regularisation - State Government Communication - Government Resolution dated 24.07.2015, Government Resolution dated 28.08.2017 - The court held that the posts were created temporarily and filled on a temporary basis. The petitioners' employment automatically terminated on the expiry of their appointment period. The court referred to the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1, stating that the petitioners cannot claim regularisation as their posts were purely temporary. The court also rejected the petitioners' claim for parity with other employees who were regularised based on erroneous orders, citing the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (2009) 12 SCC 49.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the communication by the State Government refusing to regularise their services as Junior Engineers and Agriculture Officers. They contended that the posts were permanent and sought direction for absorption on sanctioned vacant posts. They also claimed parity with other employees who were regularised based on erroneous orders.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the posts were created temporarily and filled on a temporary basis. The petitioners' employment automatically terminated on the expiry of their appointment period. The court held that the petitioners cannot claim regularisation as their posts were purely temporary. The court also rejected the petitioners' claim for parity with other employees who were regularised based on erroneous orders.

Issues: The issues involved were the nature of the posts, the petitioners' claim for regularisation, and their claim for parity with other employees who were regularised based on erroneous orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle from the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1, stating that the petitioners cannot claim regularisation as their posts were purely temporary. The court also cited the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (2009) 12 SCC 49, to reject the petitioners' claim for parity.

Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were dismissed, and the court discharged the rule with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

Arun R. Pedneker, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing.

2. Both these Writ Petitions are heard together as the issues involved in both the Petitions are identical. In both the Writ Petitions the Petitioners are challenging the communication dated 05.05.2022 issued by the State Government refusing to regularise the services of the Petitioners on the posts of Junior Engineers and Agriculture Officers. In Writ Petition No.7520 of 2022, Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were working as Junior Engineers (Special Trained Officer, MGNREGA), whereas Petitioner No.2 was working as an Agriculture Officer (Special Technical Officer MGNREGA) in the establishment of Zilla Parishad, Jalna since 2016. While in Writ Petition No.7578 of 2022, Petitioner No.1 was working as a Junior Engineer whereas Petitioner No.2 was working as an Agriculture Officer (Special Technical Officer, MGNREGA) in the establishment of the Zilla Parisahd, Jalgaon since 2016.

3. The brief facts in the case leading to the filing of the Petitions are as under:-

    [I] By the Government Resolution dated 24.07.2015, the State Government created 96 posts in the establishments of Zilla Parishad throughout Maharashtra for Special Technical Officers. This post were to be called as Special Technical Officer, MGNREGA [Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme]. The said posts were created temporarily, initially for a period of two years.

[II] In pursuance of the aforesaid Government Resolution, the Zilla Parishad, Jalna advertised two posts of Junior Engineers and one post of Agriculture Officer on temporary basis. Similarly, one post of Junior Engineer and one post of Agriculture Officer was advertised vide Advertisement dated 31.10.2015 for Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. Pursuant to the Advertisements, the Petitioners applied for the said posts and were initially selected and appointed in their respective Zilla Parishads for a period of two years.

[III] Subsequently, by a Government Resolution dated 28.08.2017, the Government granted 5 years extension till 31.07.2022 to all the 96 post created in the establishments of the Zilla Parishads under the MGNREGA scheme.

[IV] In the interregnum, the Petitioners filed Writ Petitions Nos.12706 of 2018 and 4682 of 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay alleging that they were discontinued from services in the year 2018. The Hon’ble High Court by an interim order protected the Petitioners and finally by order dated 24.01.2020 extended their tenure till 31.07.2022 as per the Government Resolution dated 28.08.2017 whereby the State had given extension to all the aforesaid 96 post till 31.07.2022.

[V] As far as the Petitioners claim for regularisation is concerned, they were permitted to move the State Government and the State was directed to take a decision on their representation on its own merits. Pursuant to the orders passed by the High Court, the Petitioners preferred representation dated 24.06.2021 before the State Government seeking regularisation of their services. The State Government by its communication dated 05.05.2022, refused to regularise the services of the Petitioners and hence they are before this Hon’ble Court.

4. The contentions of the Petitioners before this Court are primarily two fold:-

    (a) The Petitioners contend that the posts are permanent posts and the State is barred from seeking contractual employment on the said post and the filling up of the vacancies temporarily is without authority of law. The Petitioners ought to have been selected on the permanent post. They contend that even if the Advertisements were called for appointment on temporary posts, that should be considered for the permanent posts as they are fully equipped and qualified for the said posts. The Petitioners, prayed for a direction to the State Government to absorb the present Petitioners on sanctioned vacant posts of Junior Engineer and Agriculture Offic

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top