KANHAIYALAL SHYAMLAL DHAWADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

(2.) This is a case wherein legitimate expectations as well as rights created by operation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel have been thrown to the winds by the arbitrary and capricious manner of working of some of the officers of the Government. The result of such arbitrariness is that the poor class of employees as that of the petitioners suffers to no end. This is the reason, why the petitioners are required to knock at the doors of this Court. They are seeking directions of this Court to respondent nos.1 to 3 to regularise their services as Junior Assistants in terms of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 18.3.2010.

(3.) By an advertisement dated 18.3.2010, applications from eligible candidates were invited for filling up various categories of posts, as listed in the advertisement. One of the categories was that of Junior Assistants required for the Zilla Parishad schools. There were 14 vacancies, which were confirmed to be in existence through proper verification carried out by the District Selection Committee. This fact is prominently stated in the advertisement dated 18.3.2010.