KISHORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis dehors the rules as medical Officer in Class III post on 28/2/1990 for a period of three months and it was extended from time to time. Apprehending termination of his service, he filed Writ Petition No. 2661 of 1990 in the High court of bombay at Nagpur. The High court had transferred the matter to the administrative tribunal. In TA No. 3559 of 1992, the tribunal by order dated 15/9/1993 directed that the petitioner may be allowed to continue until the duly selected candidates by the Selection Board or Maharashtra Public service Commission were available and appointed; his continuance in service was only on ad hoc basis without conferment of any right including the requirement of notice before terminating the service; at best, he would be entitled to be considered along with other candidates and as soon as the duly selected candidate is appointed, his service was liable to be terminated even without notice. By proceedings dated 4/1/1994 one Dr S. S. Solanki, Medical officer, Class III who was selected by the public service commission was posted by transfer at his request in place of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order of termination in OA No. 400 of 1995 and the tribunal in the impugned order dated 12/4/1996 dismissed the petition. Thus, these special leave petitions.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since vacancies are existing the appointment of Dr Solanki by transfer could not be used as a means to terminate the service of the petitioner. We fail to appreciate the contention. It is fairly agreed by the learned counsel that the petitioner has no right to the post and as soon as a duly selected candidate is posted in his place, he has to give place to the duly selected candidate. But his contention is that since Dr Solanki was selected earlier to the order passed by the tribunal and had been appointed on his transfer, it cannot be used as a means to terminate the services of the petitioner. His contention has absolutely no force. As soon as the duly selected candidate is posted, whether directly or by transfer, necessarily the petitioner has to give place to such a candidate. The petitions, therefore, do not merit interference.

(3.) The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.