JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. This petition poses a unique conundrum about entitlement of an officer - holder of a substantive lower post - to continue to hold higher post on which he is appointed on contract basis for a fixed tenure. The issue becomes unique as his movement from lower to higher post is not by ‘promotion’ but by way of ‘contractual appointment’ and upon joining the higher post, his lower substantive post is treated as vacant by the employer and filled by making regular appointment. Contrary to the specific term that the contractual appointment is only for a maximum period of 5 years, there is a suggestion in one of the orders that he would get regular payscale after expiration of period of 5 years. What would be his fate upon expiration of period of contract appointment on higher post - whether he will be ousted from service or reassigned to his substantive post? Whether mere making of regular appointment on his substantive lower post would create a right in his favour to continue to occupy the higher post even upon expiration of period of contract? Whether the principle of impermissibility of replacement of an ad hoc employee by another ad hoc employee be invoked in these circumstances? These are the questions that we are called upon to answer in the present petition.

3. The issue arises in the light of petitioner being appointed on contract basis on higher post of Plant Engineer in the same organization where he already held substantive lower post of Shift Engineer. The contract tenure has expired and he is brought back to his substantive post of Shift Engineer. The post of Plant Engineer is however not filled up on regular basis and another officer is appointed to that post again on contract basis and/or charge of the post was handed over to other officers. In these circumstances, petitioner demands continuation on the post of Plant Engineer till the post is filled up on regular basis invoking principle of ‘ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc employee’. Also demanded is the regular pay scale of the post of Plant Engineer upon completion of 5 years of service on that post.

4. A brief factual narration as a prologue to our judgment would be necessary. Pursuant to participation in selection process, petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Shift Engineer in Haffkine Bio-Pharmaceutical Corporation Ltd. (Haffkine), a Government of Maharashtra Undertaking. He joined the said post on 11th September 2001. Petitioner acquired a degree of Bachelor of Technology (Mechanical Engineering) in August 2008. Additional charge of the post of Plant Engineer was handed over to him w.e.f. 5th August 2008 vide order dated 11th August 2008. He was awarded an additional monthly pay of Rs. 500/- for handling the additional charge of the post of Plant Engineer. Respondent-Haffkine issued an advertisement on 4th December 2008 for filling up the posts inter-alia of Plant Engineer on contract basis for a period of 5 years on consolidated salary of Rs. 32,080/- with additional perks. Petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement and applied in pursuance thereof. After participating in the selection process, he was issued with an offer of appointment dated 20th July 2009, which envisaged appointment initially for a period of 2 years on consolidated salary of Rs. 32,520/-. At the end of 2 years, his work and ability was to be examined by a committee and if the same was found satisfactory, the appointment was to be continued for a further period of 3 years. It was further directed that the petitioner would have to execute an agreement in the prescribed format with Respondent-Haffkine. Petitioner accepted offer and, by appointment order dated 24th July 2009 issued by the Managing Director of Haffkine, he was appointed as a Plant Engineer w.e.f. 24th July 2009 subj