ANIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present writ petition, the petitioner Dr. Anil Dhage, a Dentist, has put to challenge judgment and order dated 24.12.2001 in Original Application No. 558/2000, inter alia, by which the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) held that the ad hoc employee -petitioner was replaced by a bonded candidate namely; respondent no.5 -Dr. Sandip Gujar on 09.04.2001 and, therefore, the Original Application did not survive and was disposed of.

(2.) THE petitioner, being a qualified Dental Surgeon, was appointed by Dean, Medical College, Nagpur on 12.06.1998, pursuant to his selection on 19.08.1997 as Dental Surgeon in the pay scale of Rs. 2200 -4000/ -. But before that he had worked and the total period of his service till 29.08.2000 is as shown below, which is supported by the appointment orders produced by the petitioner from Annexures E to E -11.

(3.) THE respondents, without obtaining the modification of the said order, as late as on 09.04.2001 appointed one Dr. Sandip Gujar -respondent no.5 herein, in his place again by way of Ad hoc appointee because admittedly, no candidate from the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (M.P.S.C.) was sent. The post occupied by the petitioner was, however, kept vacant for about 8 months and the petitioner was not allowed to resume his duties even till Dr.Sandip Gujar was appointed i.e. from 30.08.2000 till 08.04.2001 for no reason when there was clear cut direction in addition issued by the Directorate of Medical Education on 24.02.2000 not to keep the post vacant in order that the patients do not suffer. As per the Dental Surgeon Class -III Directorate of Health Services Recruitment Rules, 1990, examination for recruitment for the post is necessary. However, stop gap, temporary or ad hoc appointments are permitted to be made till receipt of the selected candidates vide rule (3) thereof. The services of the petitioner were, however, terminated in order to favour respondent no.5 -Dr. Sandip Gujar by showing that he was appointed as a bonded candidate and, therefore, he replaced the petitioner. The petitioner had already applied for the post of Dental Surgeon through M.P.S.C. but since the M.P.S.C. did not declare any examination, he should have been continued in the service. At any rate, appointment of Dr. Sandip Gujar was only up to 12.02.2002 and at least thereafter the petitioner should have been continued in service. The petitioner then filed the instant petition and during the pendency of the writ petition, certain developments took place, which the petitioner brought by way of amendment to this petition in paragraph nos. 18A and 18B along with documents. The averments in the amended petition have not been refuted. He was then given appointment w.e.f. 22.04.2004 to 21.03.2005 and was again appointed by order dated 18.01.2006. However, suddenly w.e.f 20.07.2007, he was discontinued from service and was thus rendered jobless for no reasons when the posts were available. In the month of November -2008, pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Dental Surgeon, he applied but he was not allowed to appear for the interview not being in service. The petitioner has then stated in the amendment application that the only reason given was that he was replaced by Dr. Sandip Gujar, a bonded candidate when, as a matter of fact, he was never so. Therefore, the very foundation of his appointment was without any basis and without verifying the correctness of the claim that Dr. Sandip Gujar was appointed as a bonded candidate. In support of the contention, the petitioner has filed the information received by him under the Right to Information Act that the certificate of Dr. Gujar of bonded candidate was never issued nor was it issued by any competent authority. The information received under the R. T.I. Act shows that no such certificate, as claimed by Dr. Gujar, was ever issued by the competent authority and, therefore, the petitioner was put to miscarriage of justice. The petitioner then contends that he was unjustifiably not continued in service as Ad hoc Dental Surgeon. Not only that, in fact, he was entitled to be regularized in view of decision of the Government vide Government Resolution No.NEC 1408/C.No.116/Medical Services dated 22.01.2009. He, therefore, seeks a direction for regularizing him in service. He submits that he came to know about the fraud played by Dr. Sandip Gujar and other respondents in respect of certificate of bonded candidate only after filing of the writ petition in this Court and that is how, he has brought it on record.