ARUNDHAT1 AJIT PARGAONKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal directed against order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, is whether the appellant who was appointed temporarily against a permanent post was entitled to be regularised under Temporary Government Servants Extension of Permanency Resolution issued by the State Government in 1975 or under any other equitable principle as she had been working continuously since then and had worked for nine years, without break on the date the Government advertised the post to be filled through Public Service Commission.

(2.) Few dates and facts which are more or less undisputed may be narrated in brief. The appellant, a Bachelor in Dental Surgery (B.D.S.) was selected by the Divisional Selection Board and was appointed as Lecturer in Dentistry in Government B.J. Medical College, Pune on 16th September, 1978. In the appointment letter it was mentioned that the appellant was appointed, 'on a purely temporary basis pending further orders as Lecturer in Dentistry at the B. J. Medical College, Pune from date of taking over charge.........'. The letter further mentioned that the appointment of the appellant was, subject to her being found physically fit for Government service by the Medical Board and satisfactory report regarding antecedents and character. The appellant was prohibited from doing any private practice and it was stated that her appointment was, purely on a temporary basis subject to termination without notice and without any reasons being assigned. It was provided that she, 'shall not quit service without giving one month's notice in advance to the Government or to the appropriate authority. In the case of any default in giving proper notice as stated above, 'she,' shall pay to Government one month's pay in lieu thereof.' And her resignation was not to be accepted in the middle of the academic session. In 1980 and 1985 the appellant was selected by the Public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer of Dental Mechanics and Periodontia respectively. But admittedly she did not join. In August 1987 the Dean of the Medical College appears to have written some letter to the Government for placing the appellant on deputation for post-graduation. The Government did not agree to it, presumably, because the qualification for a Lecturer in Dentistry had been changed in the meantime in 1986. In March 1988 the post which was held by the appellant was advertised through Public Service Commission. The appellant filed a writ petition claiming that there was no vacancy as she having rendered nine years of service without break as a lecturer she stood regularised as per the Government Resolution dated 19-9-1975. Her claim was contested by the State on various grounds including that the petition was premature. The petition was transferred in 1991 to the Tribunal. It appears that even though there was an interim order in favour of appellant but the selection was not stayed. Therefore, Dr. Satish B. Barale, respondent No.3 was selected by the Public Service Commission but he could not join due to the interim order in favour of appellant. He, too, therefore, filed petition before the Tribunal for a direction to the Medical College, Pune, to appoint him to the post for which he was selected.

(3.) Both these petitions have been decided by the Tribunal and the claim of the appellant has been rejected as the benefit of Resolution dated 19-9-1975 could not be extended to her. It was held that this Resolution required a temporary Government servant to satisfy three conditions before his services could be regularised. One, that the original appointment of the Government servant must have been made in conformity with the relevant recruitment rules and the prescribed method of recruitment. The other two conditions that the Government servant should have produced the requisite physical fitness certificate and that he must have possessed a good record of service are not necessary to be discussed as it was not disputed by the Tribunal that these two conditions were satisfied. But according to Tribunal the appointment of appellant was not in accordance with recruitment rules even though it found that the appellant was duly qualified and was eligible to be appointed on the post of lecturer. What led the Tribunal to reject the claim of the appellant was that since this was a Class.II post it had to be filled in through Maharashtra Public Service Commission. The Tribunal did not find any merit in the claim of appellant that there was no specific denial by the respondent that the post was not in the purview of the Commission at the relevant time. The Tribunal held that on 8th October, 1965 a notification was issued by the Government specifying therein the posts which were excluded from the purview of the Public Service Commission. But since the post of Lecturer in Government Medical College Class.II was not mentioned in it, it could not be claimed by the appellant that her appointment stood regularised and the first condition of the 1975 Resolution was satisfied.