MADHUKAR Vs. MARATHWADA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel representing the respective parties as well as the learned AGP representing the State. Before adverting to appreciate the submissions, it is necessary to consider in brief, the facts leading to filing of this petition.

(3.) IT is the case of Petitioner that he is resident of village Shendra in Taluka and District Parbhani. Respondent No. 1 University was in need of land for its extension. The land belonging to Petitioner and his family was taken over by the Respondents for said purpose. They were assured to be provided with permanent employment with Respondent No. 1 University. However, Respondent No. 1 has not fulfilled their assurance. The Petitioner was employed as daily wage labour. He continued to work in that capacity for a long time i.e. for the period of more than 10 years. Abruptly, the service of Petitioner was terminated. Petitioner was again taken in employment with Respondent No. 1 University vide order dated 15.12.2001, by forcing him to withdraw his name from Court proceeding i.e. Writ Petition No. 50 of 1996 and undertaking that he will not claim employment on regular basis either as skilled or unskilled worker with Respondent No. 1 University and also he will not claim the benefit of seniority and other related benefits including counting of past service. He was forced to submit the undertaking to that effect on a stamp paper. Since he was in dire need of employment, he had no alternative except to accept those conditions. On compliance of those conditions, Petitioner was taken back in the employment as skilled tractor driver and since 13.02.2002, he is working as skilled tractor driver without benefit of permanency and wages equal to the wages paid to the person employed on regular basis. It is the say of Petitioner that while regularizing the services of the persons working on the establishment of Respondent No. 1, the principle of seniority has not been followed. The persons who were very much junior to the Petitioner, their services were regularized and they were made permanent by Respondent No. 1 University. According to Petitioner, (1) Amruta s/o Marotrao Shinde, r/o Balsa, (2) Ganesh Kondibarao Dhage, r/o Shendra, (3) Bapu Kishanrao Dhage, r/o Shndra and (4) Smt. Tanubai Shshrao Dhage, r/o Shendra, were regularized in service though they were much junior to Petitioner. The Petitioner has made various representations and requested to extend benefit of permanency. However, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 neglected to consider those representations. It is the say of Petitioner that at the time of his appointment, he was fulfilling all the requisite criteria laid down for appointment as skilled tractor driver and his selection has been made on due consideration of those criteria i.e. age, educational and technical qualification for appointment to said post. It is the further say of Petitioner that he was also entitled to have been regularized in service from the category of project affected persons as his entire land was acquired in the project of Respondent No. 1 University, as per the then policy of the Government i.e. Government Resolutions dated 18.06.1990, 22.09.1993 and 03.01.1997, which were in force.