Janabai Chandu Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

wp1685.15 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1685 OF 2015 JANABAI CHANDU PAWAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Shinde Bhagwat A. AGP for Respondent No.1: Mr. S.S. Tope Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3 : Mr. P.P. More .....

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

DATED : 23rd JULY, 2015 P.C. :- 1.

Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is appointed as bonded A.N.M. on 21.9.2013, however, the respondents are trying to terminate the services of the petitioner by appointing another adhoc A.N.M. Learned counsel submits that practice to appoint another adhoc A.N.M. by replacing the existing adhoc is not permissible. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner be continued till the regular selected candidate is available. 2.

Mr. More, the learned counsel for the respondents submits hat the petitioner has no right on the post as the petitioner is not selected by duly constituted selection committee by following due selection process.

wp1685.15 -23.

In the present case, the petitioner is not claiming permanency or regularization in service but the prayer of the petitioner is limited to the extent that the petitioner be allowed to continue till the regularly selected candidate is available. The said prayer appears to be reasonable. In the light of that, we pass the following order:-

O R D E R

I.

The respondents shall continue the petitioner in service if otherwise the petitioner is eligible till the regularly selected candidate is available.

II.

Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

( V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) rlj/