Rishikesh Radhelal Katre And Another v. State Of Mah. Through Secretary Education And Sports Deptt And Others

1402wp1964.17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1964 of 2017 Rishikesh Radhelal Katre and another

Versus

State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Educaation and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, and others.

Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for Petitioners.

Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Shri A.Y. Kapgate, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Vinay Joshi, JJ.

Dated : 14th February, 2019 In Writ Petition No.4629 of 2012 decided on 20-9-2013, the appointments of the petitioners herein were quashed and set aside. The petitioners were party-respondents in the said writ petition. The petitioners claim that they were working on clock-hour basis since last about seven years and hence they get the right of regularization in service. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sachin Ambadas Dawale and others v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2014(2) Mh.L.J. 36, and it is urged that the petitioners in this case were appointed by following the procedure.

1402wp1964.17.odt It is not possible for us to accept such submission. The petitioners were undisputedly working on clock-hour basis. The recruitment in the service of the Zilla Parishad is governed by the District Services (Recruitment) Rules. It is not in dispute that the procedure prescribed under the Recruitment Rules has not been followed. Be that as it may, if the posts are sanctioned, then all the persons eligible or entitled to compete in the process of selection will have to be provided an opportunity; otherwise, it will violate the provision of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The regularization of 'back door' entries cannot be permitted. The decision referred to above does not apply to the facts of the case at hand.

The petition is dismissed.

(Vinay Joshi, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.) Lanjewar