Dismissed

Sachin Shivaji Nikam and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Nov 2013WP/507/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking direction to appoint them as Assistant Programme Officers despite lack of prescribed qualifications were rejected. The High Court held that contract appointees have no entitlement to continuation and cannot claim relief against revised prospective eligibility criteria.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stands rejected; pending civil application disposed of.

Sachin Shivaji Nikam and Ors. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp507.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 507 OF 2013

¶5

Sachin s/o Shivaji Nikam & others .. PETITIONERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

& others .. RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. U. B. Bondar, advocate for petitioners.

¶10

Mr. S. K. Kadam, AGP for the State.

¶11

=====

¶12

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATE : 25th NOVEMBER, 2013.

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

Petitioners are claiming direction to respondents to appoint them as

¶15

Assistant Programme Officers against the available vacancies in Tahsil

¶16

Office, Kannad. It is the contention of petitioners that they were appointed on contract basis as Assistant Programme Officer on 1.6.2009 however, the

¶17

period of contractual employment was not specified in the order.

¶18

Petitioners contend that they were continued in employment till 2011 until

¶19

appointment of another set of employees on contract basis in pursuance to

¶20

the advertisement issued by the State on 12.4.2011. Petitioners contend

¶21

wp507.13

¶22

¶23

that fresh appointment made by respondents are also on adhoc basis. Petitioners who are adhoc appointees cannot be replaced by another set of adhoc employees. Petitioners contend that there are still vacancies available with respondents and they can be conveniently accommodated.

¶24

Affidavit in reply has been presented controverting the contentions raised by petitioners. It is contended in the affidavit that since petitioners are appointed on contract basis they do not have entitlement to claim relief of continuation of their employment. It is contended that the State Government has issued circular on 16.10.2010 prescribing minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Programme Officer as MBA/MSW or Post Graduate degree. Petitioners herein do not possess the requisite qualification and as such they cannot be considered for re-employment. Revised criteria of qualification prescribed under the Government Resolution dated 16.10.2010 is made applicable prospectively and while considering claim of eligible candidates for contractual employment, revised eligibility criteria has been applied. Argument advanced by petitioners that in effect eligibility criteria prescribe under Government Circular dated 16.10.2010 has been applied retrospectively is devoid of substance. Writ petition does not deserve favourable consideration hence stands rejected.

¶25

wp507.13

¶26

¶27

Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands

¶28

disposed of.

¶29

( A.I.S. CHEEMA ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶30

( R. M. BORDE )

¶31

dyb

Sachin Shivaji Nikam and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Shivaji Nikam and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

The State of Mahrashtra and Ors. Vs Uddhav Laxman Vaidya

Surekha Pradip Lale and Ors. Vs M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Yogesh Gajanan Mandore and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Avinash Abhiman Wale Vs Managing Director, Mah. State Power Generation Co. Ltd.

Parvati Kishanrao Phad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hafijunnisa Begum Atthussain Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others