SHOBHA M BHAVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are presently working as lecturers in the different faculties in Government Medical Colleges and Hospitals located in the State of Maharashtra. The posts held by the petitioners under the Rules are required to be filled in by following the selection procedure through Maharashtra Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as m. P. S. C. , for short), by advertising the posts and by calling applications from the eligible candidates. As various posts in the cadre of lecturers remained to be filled in for various reasons, the petitioners came to be appointed on an ad hoc basis by the State Government as a stop gap arrangement. All the petitioners are appointed under different appointment orders for a specified period, ranging from less than a month to about four months. After expiry of the periods specified in the appointment orders, they are reappointed by issuing fresh appointment orders from time to time and are continued as ad hoc and temporary. Most of the petitioners have worked in the respective posts for about 2-3 years except in one petition where the petitioner has in all put in five years of service.

(2.) NONE of the petitioners are regularly selected candidates and are required to be replaced by a duly selected candidate by M. P. S. C. in accordance with the procedure prescribed. In some of the petitions the services of the petitioners were sought to be terminated with a view to appoint another set of ad hoc employees and in some of the cases, non-bonded candidates were sought to be replaced by bonded candidates, and as such, the petitions were filed before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal seeking a declaration that one set of ad hoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of ad hoc employees and in the submission of the petitioners, as the non-bonded candidates and the bonded candidates are to be appointed on an ad hoc basis, one cannot replace the other. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, did protect the services of the petitioners and it did declare that the services of the petitioners cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee except the bonded candidates. Aggrieved by the exception made by the M. A. T. , permitting the State Government to appoint bonded candidates in place of non-bonded candidates, the present petitions have been filed.

(3.) IN so far as the grievance made by the petitioners that they ought not to be replaced by bonded candidates does not really survive in view of the stand taken by the State Government, which is consistent with the policy decision contained in Government Resolution dated 10th April, 2003. By the said Government Resolution, a policy decision is taken that the earlier policy of replacing non-bonded candidates by bonded candidates, being inconsistent with the law laid down by the Apex Court "that one set of ad hoc employees should not be replaced by another set of ad hoc employees", the same is discontinued and it is then laid down that non-bonded candidates ought not to be replaced by bonded candidates as appointments of both the category of candidates are, in fact, on ad hoc basis. This being the position, there is no dispute that non-bonded candidates cannot, either be replaced by another non-bonded candidates or by bonded candidates and vice versa. Having regard to the stand taken by the State Government, it is clear that in all the petitions relief claimed by the petitioners seeking quashing of that part of the order passed by the M. A. T. which permits replacement of ad hoc non-bonded candidates by appointment of bonded candidates on ad hoc basis, has to be granted.