Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S. V. Gangapurwala, Sandeep V. Marne, JJ.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Archana Prakash Charate – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7879 of 2019
Decided On : 06-04-2023
Termination - Lecturer - Government Polytechnic - [Government Policy, Regularization, Termination, Absorption] - The court discussed the termination of a lecturer from a government polytechnic and the subsequent challenge to the termination order. The court also examined the regularization of services of contract lecturers and the legal principles governing such regularization. The court found the termination order to be erroneous and directed the regularization of the lecturer's services in line with her colleagues.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Maharashtra challenged the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which had set aside the termination order of a lecturer and directed her reinstatement and absorption in service. The lecturer was appointed on a contract basis and was subsequently terminated from her position. The court considered the delay in challenging the termination, the circumstances of the termination, and the subsequent efforts of the lecturer to seek reinstatement and regularization.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the termination order to be erroneous as the lecturer was not the junior most contract lecturer and there was no necessity to terminate her services. The court also upheld the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay in filing the Original Application challenging the termination. The court further held that the lecturer was entitled to be regularized in service from the date of her initial engagement, as her termination was found to be erroneous.
Issues: The issues involved the erroneous termination of the lecturer, the delay in challenging the termination, and the entitlement of the lecturer to be regularized in service. The court also considered the legal principles governing regularization of contract employees and the applicability of the Umadevi judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination order was erroneous and directed the regularization of the lecturer's services from the date of her initial engagement. The court also upheld the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay in filing the Original Application challenging the termination. The court emphasized the unique circumstances of the case and made an exception for the lecturer's regularization based on the peculiar facts and circumstances.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the State Government's petition and upheld the Tribunal's order, directing the petitioners to comply with the Tribunal's directions for the lecturer's reinstatement and regularization. The court discharged the rule and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep V. Marne, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.
THE CHALLENGE:-
2. The State of Maharashtra has filed the present petition challenging the judgment and order dated 10th April 2019 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai ('Tribunal') in the Original Application No.216 of 2016. The Original Application was instituted by the respondent challenging order dated 7th September 2012 relieving her from the post of Lecturer as well as order dated 13th October 2015 rejecting her application for reinstatement and absorption in service. By the judgment and order impugned in the present petition, the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application by setting aside the orders dated 7th September 2012 and 13th December 2015 and directing petitioners to reinstate her on the post of Lecturer. The Tribunal has further directed petitioners to absorb her in service on par with other lecturers whose services are regularized by Government Resolutions dated 14th January 2015 and 13th March 2015.
FACTS :-
3. A brief factual narration as prologue to the judgment would be necessary. On account of ban imposed by the State Government on recruitment in all departments, several vacant posts in Government and Non-Government aided educational institutions could not be filled up. Therefore, on 25th July 2002, the State of Maharashtra took a policy decision for making appointments on the post of lecturer on contract basis till availability of candidates appointed through regular selection process conducted by MPSC. By way of policy decision dated 27th July 2002, approval was granted for filling up 2/3rd vacancies on contract basis. Though the decision was stayed by Government Resolution dated 19th July 2003, the stay was vacated vide Government Resolution dated 2nd August 2003. By subsequent Government Resolution dated 19th August 2003, it was decided to fill up 100% of vacancies of teaching posts on contract basis.
4. In view of the policy decision so taken, the Directorate of Technical Education issued advertisement for filling up vacant posts of lecturers in various Government Polytechnics on contract basis for a period of 2 years or until availability of nominated candidates from MPSC, whichever was earlier. Appointments were to be made on consolidated salary. The respondent applied in pursuance of said advertisement and participated in the selection process. By order dated 5th November 2007, several individuals, including the respondent, came to be appointed as Lecturers on contract basis on consolidated monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- for a period of 2 years or till availability of MPSC selected candidate, whichever was earlier. The respondent was selected and appointed in Government Polytechnic, Osmanabad in OBC category. The appointment order shows that principle of reservation was followed while making contractual appointments. She accordingly joined the post of Lecturer in Government Polytechnic, Osmanabad. Upon expiry of period of 2 years, fresh appoint order was issued on 19th November 2009 appointing her as Lecturer in Government Polytechnic, Solapur on contract basis from 1st December 2010 to 31st October 2012 on consolidated salary of Rs.12,000/-.
5. Though the tenure of Respondent's appointment was up to 31st October 2012, she came to be relieved from service by order dated 7th September 2012 on the ground that one Shri. G. G. Ovarikar was transferred on administrative ground against vacancy created by transfer of contract lecturer and that Shri. Ovarikar joined w.e.f. 6th September 2012. Respondent was treated as junior most contract lecturer and therefore she was relieved from duties w.e.f. 6th September 2012. After her relief, an order dated 12th November 2012 was passed continuing services of other contract lecturers, which included name of Shri. S. C. Bulla, Lecturer - Anuvidyut. The order did not include Respondent's name. This is how thou
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the erroneous termination of a contract employee can lead to their entitlement to regularization in service, based on the unique circumstances....
High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution will not issue directions for regularization unless employees claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular r....
Appointments made on contractual basis, without following the regular process of selection as per the relevant rules, do not confer any right to the appointee for regularization.
In order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under t....
Temporary or contractual employees lack legal entitlement to regularization unless appointed through lawful selection processes as established by precedent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's long service as a Trained Graduate Teacher against a substantive vacant post and the Government's decision to declare the non....
(1) There is distinction between irregular and illegal appointment.(2) Mere over-ruling of principles by a subsequent judgment will not dilute binding effect of decision on inter-parties.(3) It is no....
Temporary or casual employment does not confer legal rights to regularization; adherence to proper recruitment processes is mandatory for permanent appointments.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
