Dismissed

Vikas Narayan Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2008WP/1758/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of a petitioner's temporary appointment as a Higher Grade Stenographer. The court held the petitioner had no vested right to permanency as he failed to clear the MPSC examination, and the termination was valid under appointment terms.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; Rule discharged.

Vikas Narayan Kamble Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1758 OF 2007

¶5

 Vikas Narayan Kamble .. Petitioner.

¶6

vs.

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

 Mr.Q.M.Ashfaq for the petitioner

¶9

 Ms.M.P.Thakur for respondent nos.1 and 2

¶10

CORAM: J.N. PATEL, &
 S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.

¶11

DATE: 8TH DECEMBER, 2008.

¶12

 P.C.

¶13

 1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.

¶14

 2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary
 Jurisdiction of this court for seeking a writ in the
 nature of quashing and setting aside of the order dated
 16.10.2004 passed by respondent nos.2 terminating the
 services of the petitioner and for a declaration that
 he is entitled to have acquired all permanency benefits

¶15

 of services from the date of appointment

¶16

 w.e.f.16.07.2003.

¶17

¶18

 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he
 belongs to Scheduled Caste and came to be appointed in
 the office of Industrial Court on the post of Higher
 Grade Stenographer initially by order dated 16.07.03
 and, thereafter, his appointment was continued from
 time to time. During the course of the employment, the
 petitioner was also required to attend election duties
 and his appointment was abruptly terminated by a
 communication dated 16.10.2004.

¶19

 4. It is the case of the petitioner that
 thereafter he moved the then Chief Minister,
 Mantralaya, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai with a
 request to absorb him permanently in service on the
 post of Stenographer (Higher Grade) and inspite of
 continued persuasion did not get any response and,
 therefore, he has filed this petition.

¶20

 5. In reply to the petition, respondent no.2 has
 filed affidavit in reply of the then Registrar (Legal),
 High Court, Appellate Side. It is the stand taken by
 respondent no.2 that the petitioner was appointed
 merely on temporary basis and one of the most important

¶21

¶22

 condition on which the petitioner was appointed was
 that the appointment may be terminated without giving
 any reason and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be
 questioned by the petitioner. In addition to the fact
 that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis,
 his performance was also not satisfactory and up to the
 mark as per the confidential reports received from the
 members of the Industrial Court under whom the
 petitioner has worked. It is also contended that the
 petitioner’s appointment was continued by giving breaks
 as there were no regular appointment made by
 Maharashtra Public Service Commission on the said post,
 and, therefore, there is no merits in the petition.

¶23

 6. Apart from the fact that the petition has been
 filed after substantial delay and this court can
 summarily dismiss the petition on the ground of delay
 and latches (which the petitioner has tried to explain
 by placing on record correspondence with the Honourable
 Chief Minister), we find that petitioner has no vested
 right to claim appointment on permanent basis for the
 reason that the petitioner has never passed the MPSC
 examination which is a must. Secondly, the
 petitioner’s appointment was purely on temporary basis

¶24

¶25

 and his services came to be discontinued as per the

¶26

 terms and conditions of the letter of appointment.
 Therefore, no case is made out by the petitioner to
 claim the relief sought for. Petition is dismissed

¶27

 with no order as to costs.

¶28

 7. Rule discharged.

¶29

(J.N. Patel, J.)

¶30

(S.J. Kathawalla, J.)

Vikas Narayan Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Narayan Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ujjwala Dattu Kothule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hakim Ahmad Sayyad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shrikant Shyamrao Kumbhar Vs Sanmati Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Malan Indrajeet Markad Vs the Branch Manager-Lic Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Parmeshwar Bhagwan Ankushrao Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Nana Chikhale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.