PURUSHOTTAM RAMKRUSHNA BAHETWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tussle between citizens and State has resulted into filing of present petition. Visiting lecturers through their counsel have argued that respondent State is not acting as an ideal employer, whereas, learned counsel for the State has argued that nature of appointment of the petitioners do not entitle them to claim regularization and permanency in service.

(2.) On the aforesaid lines, we have heard Mr. Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Advocate Mrs. Gauri Vyankatraman for petitioners and Mr. Harish Dangre with Ms. M.H. Deshmukh, learned AGP for respondent/State. We have also heard Mr. N.P. Lambat, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

(3.) The petitioners in the instant petition claims to be the visiting lecturers, who were working at the time of filing of writ petition in various Government Polytechnic Colleges across the State, for years together, without any interruption. It is their case that though their appointment is by valid selection process, preceded by issuance of advertisement, conducting of interviews and though they are rendering and performing duties of regular lecturers, State is denying them the benefit of absorption and regularization in services. Thus, according to them, same is in violation of law laid down by this Court in case of Sachin Ambadas Dawale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [2014(2)Mh.L.J. 36] ("Sachin Dawale") and Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dharamsingh and Others Vs. State of UP.