Temporary or contractual employees lack legal entitlement to regularization unless appointed through lawful selection processes as established by precedent.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.

Tussle between citizens and State has resulted into filing of present petition. Visiting lecturers through their counsel have argued that respondent State is not acting as an ideal employer, whereas, learned counsel for the State has argued that nature of appointment of the petitioners do not entitle them to claim regularization and permanency in service.

2. On the aforesaid lines, we have heard Mr. Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Advocate Mrs. Gauri Vyankatraman for petitioners and Mr. Harish Dangre with Ms. M.H. Deshmukh, learned AGP for respondent/State. We have also heard Mr. N.P. Lambat, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. The petitioners in the instant petition claims to be the visiting lecturers, who were working at the time of filing of writ petition in various Government Polytechnic Colleges across the State, for years together, without any interruption. It is their case that though their appointment is by valid selection process, preceded by issuance of advertisement, conducting of interviews and though they are rendering and performing duties of regular lecturers, State is denying them the benefit of absorption and regularization in services. Thus, according to them, same is in violation of law laid down by this Court in case of Sachin Ambadas Dawale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [2014(2)Mh.L.J. 36] (“Sachin Dawale”) and Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharamsingh and Others Vs. State of UP

4. All the petitioners have also stated that the respondents are extracting work of Full Time Lecturers from them but by not making them permanent, State has violated mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to them, they perform various duties like setting up of question papers, assessment and moderation of necessary answerbooks, arranging industrial visits, preparing laboratory plans, conducting sport activities etc. It is also their case that they are duly qualified for the post and therefore, there is absolutely no reason for the State to treat them in discriminatory manner.

5. According to the petitioners, regular appointments on the post of lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges through Maharashtra Public Service Commission are not being made since last many years and therefore, more than 50% of sanctioned regular posts are lying vacant. The Government by taking services of regular lecturer from them are paying meager amount of Rs. 15,600/- or more towards maximum salary, whereas the lecturers, who are performing same duties, are being paid higher than them. By employing their services as visiting lecturers and substituting services by other set of employees, respondents are adopting hire and fire policy.

6. It is their case that in the aforesaid background, the petitioners have preferred the present petition before this Court and vide order dated 10-08- 2023, since interviews were tried to be conducted for the post of visiting lecturers, interim order was granted observing that orders of appointment pursuant to interviews shall not be issued. The said order was thereafter continued until further order and still is in existence.

7. The petitioners have further contended that on 16.7.2014, again, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent, had initiated fresh drive for filing up the post on clock hour basis by publishing advertisement, in spite of the earlier order dated 10-08-2023. Accordingly, vide order dated 16-07-2014, this Court had directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to undertake any recruitment process unless leave is obtained from Court. It is also the case of petitione