MANGAL SHRIDHAR PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in both these petitions are teachers. Both of them are claiming a post under Rayat Shikshan Sanstha, an educational institution running a large number of schools and colleges in maharashtra. This Sanstha is joined as respondent No. 2 in the first petition i. e. Writ Petition No. 6240 of 2000. Respondent No. 4 is Principal of Azad college run by this Sanstha. Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 are State of maharashtra and Joint Secretary, Higher Education. The petitioner in the second petition is respondent No. 6 in the first petition.

(2.) AS far as the second petition i. e. Writ Petition No. 2611 of 2001 is concerned, the State Government and the Joint Secretary, Higher Education are respondents Nos. 1 and 3 thereto. Rayat Shikshan Sanstha is respondent No. 2 and Azad College is respondent No. 4. Shivaji University is respondent No. 5 and the petitioner in the first petition is joined as respondent No. 6 in the second petition. For the sake of convenience, we are referring the petitioner in the first petition by her name "ms. Patil", whereas the petitioner in the second petition by her name "ms. Choudhari".

(3.) THE case of Ms. Patil is that she was selected to the post of lecturer in a college of education run by Rayat Shikshan Sanstha (for short "the Sanstha" ). It is stated in her petition that she was so selected in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the Sanstha in the daily "sakal" of 14th January, 1991. Interviews were held and she was issued an appointment letter dated 1st august, 1991 and she was supposed to join from 5th August 1991. It however so happened that the, college of education, where she was supposed to join, did not have adequate number of students and therefore inspite of her selection she could not join after this selection in the college where she was supposed to join. It is her further case that thereafter she was accommodated from time to time on yearly basis in different colleges run by the Sanstha. Subsequently there was another selection procedure in November 1995. In that procedure, she participated. She was given rank No. 3 among the selected candidates. Unfortunately, it so happened that the Sanstha could accommodate only two teachers at that time and inspite of her selection, she could not get any regular post after that selection. Thereafter also she continued to teach on yearly basis in other colleges of the Sanstha. In October 2000, there was again an advertisement and in pursuance thereto, Ms. Patil applied. She was however not selected, but Ms. Choudhari got selected. It is material to note that prior to her selection, the Ms. Patil was working in a secondary school of the Sanstha and we are told that presently since there is no such availability of any yearly post, she has gone back to a secondary school of the Sanstha where she is presently teaching. It is this selection of ms. Choudhari which is challenged in the first petition. It is material to note that an exparte ad interim stay was granted by another Division Bench of this court when the petition came up initially for consideration on 20th November, 2000. That stay was subsequently vacated on 11th July, 2001. The matter was carried to the Apex Court in a Special Leave Petition. The Special leave Petition was dismissed on 30th October, 2001. Ms. Choudhari has been continuing to work as a Lecturer in the meanwhile. This petition has been opposed by the State Government by filing a reply and also by the Sanstha.