This judgment dismissed writ petitions filed by staff nurses seeking regularization of their services after completing bond periods. The Court held that mere completion of a bond does not confer a right to permanent employment and upheld the rejection of the applications based on para 53
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8853 OF 2013
| 1. | Megha Chandrakant Kale, Age : 29 years, Occu. Service |
|---|---|
| (as Staff Nurse, R.H. Vashi), R/o Govt. Quarters, R.H. Vashi Campus, Vashi, Dist. Osmanabad |
|
| 2. | Bhagyashri Bhimrao Koli, Age 30 years, Occu. Service |
| (as Staff Nurse, Civil Hospital, Osmanabad), R/o Datta Nagar, Yedshi Road, Osmanabad |
|
| 3. | Surekha Abhimanyu Lonkhaskar, Age : 34 years, Occu. Service |
| (as Staff Nurse, Civil Hospital, | |
| Beed), R/o At & Post Ambika Nagar, Palwan Road, |
|
| Tq. & Dist. Beed | |
| 4. | Anita Dnyandeo Koli, |
| Age 38 years, Occu. Service | |
| (as Staff Nurse, R.H. Vashi), | |
| R/o At & Post Mandwa, Tq. Vashi, Dist. Osmanabad |
|
| 5. | Smita Raybhanrao Mungal, Age 28 years, Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse, Women's Hospital, Latur), R/o C/o Sangeeta Raybhanrao Mungal, Shaskiya |
| Colony, Latur (Deleted vide order dated 21.12.2013) |
(2) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
| 6. | Meeratai Vitthalrao Telange, Age : 26 years, Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse, Rural Hospital, Naigaon), R/o At Post & Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded |
|---|---|
| 7. | Annapurna Chandrashekhar Puri, Age 35 years, Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse, Civil Hospital, Osmanabad), R/o Type-II, Block No.45, B & C Quarter, Anand Nagar, Osmanabad |
| 8. | Swati Shahaji Ghone, Age 28 years, Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse, Civil Hospital, Osmanabad), R/o Bhavani Chowk, Ganesh Nagar, Osmanabad |
| 9. | Vaishali Maruti Deshmukh, Age 27 years, Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse, Civil Hospital, Beed), R/o C/o J.D. Kulkarni, Vidyanagar (West), Tal. & Dist. Beed |
| 10. | Ashwini Gorakh Bhoskar, Age : 26 years, Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse, Civil Hospital, Osmanabad), R/o C/o G.K. Sonne, Near Old Gas, Tambri, Osmanabad |
(3) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
| 11. | Varsha Navnath Ugalmugle, |
|---|---|
| Age 27 years, Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse, Civil Hospital, Beed), R/o Dhanora Road, Near Asha Talkies, Yashwant Nagar, Beed |
|
| 12. | Nita Ankush Shinde, Age 26 years, Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse, R.H. Vashi), R/o At Post Andora, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad |
| 13. | Sumitra Limbaji Abhang, Age 27 years, Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse, Civil Hospital, Beed), R/o Gahate Niwas, Bhandar Galli, Juna Bazar, Beed |
| 14. | Yogita Ashok Mahindrakar, Age 28 years, Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse, Civil Hospital, Beed), C/o Civil Hospital, Beed |
| 15. | Jyoti Ramling Mengale, Age 29 years, Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse, R.H. Killari), C/o Gramin Rugnalaya, Killari, Dist. Latur |
| 16. | Ambrapali Rajendra Suryawanshi, Age : 25 years, Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse, Civil Hospital, Osmanabad), R/o B Block, Civil Hospital, Osmanabad |
| (4) | W.P. No.8853/2013, etc. |
|
|---|---|---|
| 17. | Minakshi Shahaji Chavan, Age : 26 years, Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse, Civil Hospital, Osmanabad), C/o Civil Hospital, Osmanabad |
|
| 18. | Roshan Shaikh, | |
| Age 25 years, Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse, Civil Hospital, Beed), R/o Beed |
..PETITIONERS | |
| VERSUS | ||
| 1. | State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Public Health Department, |
|
| M.S., Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 |
||
| 2. | The Director, Health Services, M.S., Mumbai |
|
| 3. | The Deputy Director, Health Services, Latur |
..RESPONDENTS |
| Mr A | vinash Deshmukh, Advocate for pet | itioners; |
| Mr S | .S. Tope, A.G.P. for respondents |
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9143 OF 2013
| (5) | W.P. No.8853/2013, etc. |
|
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Smita Raybhanrao Mungal, Age 27 yrs, Occu. Service (As staff nurse Women's Hospital Latur), R/o C/o Sangeeta Raybhanrao Mungal, Shaskiya Colony, Tq. & Dist. Latur |
|
| 2. | Ranjana Avinash Kadam, Age : 27 yrs. occu. Service (As Staff Nurse Civil Hospital Osmanabad), R/o C/o Avinash V. Kadam At Post Bori, Tq. & Dist. Latur |
|
| 3. | Jayshri Chandrakant Sangewar, Age : 25 yrs., Occu. Service (As Staff Nurse Sub District Hospital, Mukhed), |
|
| R/o C/o Classis Dresses, At Post - Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded |
||
| 4. | Lata Marotirao Warne, Age 23 yrs., Occu. Service (As staff nurse, Resident Hospital, Biloli), R/o C/o Gramin Rugnalaya, |
|
| Biloli, Tq. Biloli, | ||
| Dist. Latur | ..RESPONDENTS |
VERSUS
| (6) | W.P. No.8853/2013, etc. |
|
|---|---|---|
| 1. | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Public Health Department M.S., Mantralaya Mumbai - 32 |
|
| 2. | The Director, Health Service, Maharashtra State Mumbai |
|
| 3. | The Dy. Director, Health Services, Latur |
..RESPONDENTS |
| Mr Mr |
D.M. Shinde, Advocate for petitioners; S.S. Tope, A.G.P. for respondents |
|
| WITH |
WRIT PETITION NO.9772 OF 2013
| (7) | W.P. No.8853/2013, etc. |
|
|---|---|---|
| 3. | Mukta Nagorao Komwad, Age 27 years, Occupation : Service as Staff Nurse District Sub Hospital |
|
| Mukhed, Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded, |
||
| R/o Mukhed, District Nanded |
..PETITIONERS | |
| VERSUS | ||
| 1. | The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 |
|
| 2. | The Director, Health Services, Maharashtra State Mumbai |
|
| 3. | The Deputy Director, Health Services, Latur, |
|
| District Latur | ..RESPONDENTS |
Mr Vijay G. Sakolkar, Advocate for petitioners; Mr S.S. Tope, A.G.P. for respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9284 OF 2013
(8) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
| 2. | Swati Ganpat Pawar, Age : 27 yrs. Occu. Service |
|
|---|---|---|
| (as Staff Nurse), Rural Hospital, Bhoom, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad |
||
| 3. | Sarika Dnyaneshwar Kolage, Age 27 yrs. Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse), Rural Hospital Dhanora, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed |
|
| 4. | Madhuri Shankarrao Jadhav, Age : 26 yrs. Occu. Service (as Staff Nurse), Rural Hospital Kaij, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed |
..PETITIONERS |
| VERSUS | ||
| 1. | The State of Maharashtra | |
| 2. | The Director | |
| Health Services, Maharashtra State Mumbai |
||
| 3. | The Deputy Director, Health Services, |
|
| Latur, Dist. Latur | ..RESPONDENTS | |
| Mr | V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for petitioners; | |
| Mr | S.S. Tope, A.G.P. for respondents |
(9) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.
(Date of reserving the judgment : 20th January, 2014
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 12th March, 2014)
JUDGMENT (Per N.W. Sambre, J.)
Rule. Heard Rule finally with the consent of parties.
Respective Counsel waive service.
O.A. No.70 of 2013 are concerned, those were heard and disposed
(10) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
of together, prompting the petitioners to prefer present writ
petitions, which are preferred in split up group.
to the Nursing course having regard to their educational qualification.
One of the conditions while entering into such educational training was to execute a bond of service of two years after successfully completing the said course of Nursing. In compliance of said condition, the petitioners executed bonds and after passing out the respective training programme in the Nursing, were appointed on the posts of Nurses on temporary basis on the establishment of State Government as bonded candidates.
(11) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
State Government framed the Recruitment Rules for Nursing Personnel in Maharashtra Nursing Service (Class-III) on 10.1.1964. According to the petitioners, by virtue of the said Recruitment Rules, the petitioners and their predecessors were appointed on the posts of Staff Nurses. The petitioners further claim that though the similarly placed candidates like that of the petitioners were earlier given status of a regular employee, the petitioners are discriminated, as despite they have completed the bond period and though a proposal for regularization of their services was submitted, the same was not considered.
the respondents by filing a detailed reply before the Tribunal. The
(12) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
State Government pointed out that the policy of the Government is not that of regularization of the services of the candidates like that of the petitioners and if they adhere to such practice or grant the prayer of the petitioners for regularization of their services, the said act will be contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of public employment.
both, the petitioners and the respondents, and having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Secretary,
State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Umadevi & ors., 2006 (4) SCC 1
and A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies & ors.,
(2004) 7 SCC 112, has rejected the Original Applications of the petitioners, resulting into filing of the present petitions.
would urge that the Tribunal has committed an error by not considering the factual matrix and the law on the point, in its true letter and spirit. He further claims that the act on the part of the
(13) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
State Government in not granting the similar status of permanency
to the petitioners as that of their predecessors whose services were regularized, results into violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further claims that the prayer of the petitioners for regularization is in tune with the Recruitment Rules of 1964 as such practice is adopted by the State Government for regularization of the services of the other similarly situated candidates prior to the claim of the petitioners. He further urged that having regard to the length of service put into by the petitioners, it is legitimately expected that their services will be continued and regularized. Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr Deshmukh has brought to the notice of this Court the terms and conditions of the appointment order and the instructions issued by the State Government, from time to time, so as to canvass that it is not open for the State to terminate the services of the petitioners as the principle of promissory estoppel will operate. So as to draw support to the contentions, the petitioners have placed reliance upon the following judgments :-
(14)
W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
reported in 2010 (9) SCC 52 , to canvass that the past conduct of the Government in regularization of the services of the candidates similar to that of the petitioners, in spite of the Government instructions of 2005, mandates regularization of services of the petitioners.
3) Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations & ors. vs.
Union of India & ors ., reported in 2006 AIR (SC) 2945 , to canvass that the consistent practice of regularization of services of the similar employees in past and conditions of appointment orders give rise to a legitimate expectation in favour of the petitioners for getting their services regularized.
4) Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Umadevi & ors .,
reported in 2006 AIR (SC) 1806 , to canvass that the services of the petitioners need to be protected.
W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
(15)
has filed its reply and supported the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The State Government has placed reliance upon the Recruitment Rules of 1964, as also upon the Government policy in the matter of public employment, so as to canvass that just because a candidate has completed the bond period, that by itself will not confer any absolute right in public employment on permanent basis. The respondent State has further canvassed that while selecting the petitioners for giving effect to bond period, no selection procedure was adopted so as to give equal opportunity in public employment, however, just to give effect to the bond period, the services of the petitioners were taken. It is further necessary to note that the subsequent appointments of the petitioners after the bond period has come to an end as it was ad hoc in nature, as the petitioners were given appointment for a restricted period of 3 to 11 months.
(16) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
process of recruitment is required to be undertaken strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules read with the Circular of the State Government dated 25.8.2005, which is issued based upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of A. Umarani (cited supra).
virtue of the bond executed by them with the State Government. The said bond was executed by the petitioners based upon the then rule of admission to the respective courses. What appears from the above referred background is that the petitioners have taken their education of Nursing from the School of Nursing run by
(17) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
the Government of Maharashtra. The Government, while
managing such institutions has spent substantially on the studies of the petitioners. It appears to be the intention of the Government that the Government having spent substantial amount on the studies of the candidates like the petitioners, the petitioners after completion of their studies are required to undergo the course of training on the conditions mentioned in the bond which was executed in accordance with the policy of the Government. It is necessary for such candidate by virtue of the Admission Rules notified on 2nd May, 1979, that such candidate is required to sign an agreement to serve in Armed Forces, Medical Services in any of the three Defence Services in Army, Navy or Air Force anywhere in India or abroad, for a minimum period of two years on such remuneration as may be prescribed. The said Rules of 2nd May, 1979 are modified in 1986, pursuant to which it was made mandatory for the candidates like that of the petitioners to honour
the bond period of two years.
(18) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
Admission Rules, has statutory status so as to enable the State Government to take services of the candidates on whom the State Government had spent and also to have services of such candidates during the emergency period.
more particularly without following the due process under the Recruitment Rules and maintaining transparency was looked
(19) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
into by the Honourable Apex Court. The Apex Court, while
dealing with the similar issues has laid down law in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (supra). Based upon the same, the State Government has framed its policy about entry into the public employment and granting status of permanency on an employee who has entered into the public employment. A support could be drawn from the decision dated 19th November, 2003, which postulates that it is mandatory for the Recruiting Authority/Employer to intimate the Employment Exchange and in turn, the Employment Exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning Department for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation as per the requisition, in addition to call for the names by a publication in the newspaper having wider circulation and also display on the office notice board
or announcement on radio, television and employment news bulletin. The State has accordingly, based upon the above referred judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of A. Umarani (supra), has issued instructions on 25th August, 2005 as regards steps to
be taken in the public employment.
(20) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
The State has taken a decision on 20th May, 2005, thereby
announcing a competitive examination for selection and appointment of the Staff Nurses like that of the petitioners and has also in clear terms instructed not to grant employment or permanency as was done earlier. The above referred law and the policy of the Government are rightly looked into and dealt with by the learned Tribunal. This Court is required to be conscious of the fact that it is not sitting in an appeal over the judgment delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which is assailed in the present writ petition.
18. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners
on the judgment in the case of State of U.P. & anr. vs. Santosh Kumar Mishra & anr. (cited supra) is wholly misplaced. The said judgment has interpreted the Recruitment Rules which provide for direct entry of Pharmacists after acquiring relevant qualification in
the public employment. Whereas, in the case in hand, there is no such Rule or policy which confers any right in the petitioners in
the present case to seek direct entry in the service without
(21) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
undergoing the recruitment process as contemplated under the
Recruitment Rules.
(22) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
of Karnataka & ors. vs. Umadevi & ors. (cited supra), the
petitioners have no right to ask for the benefit under the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The further claim of the petitioners that they are entitled for the benefit of promissory estoppel is also liable to be rejected in view of the fact that the principle of promissory estoppel will not operate against the principle of law. The principle of law postulates that recruitment in the public employment has to be after following due procedure as provided under the Recruitment Rules.
for some time and in some cases for considerable length of time will have hardly any bearing on the status of permanency sought by the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners were aware of the fact that their entry into the service is by virtue of bond executed by them and the fact that they will not be given status of permanency was very much known to them. In the present case, there was no promise by the authorities that the petitioners will be given the status of permanency. In fact, it was the intention of the
(23) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
appointing authority that posts in question, which are permanent vacancies, are required to be filled in after following due procedure as provided for the recruitment. The observations made by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Umadevi & ors. (cited supra) in paragraphs 34, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 deal with the claim put-forth by the petitioners. In the light of above referred observations made by the Apex Court, the claim of the petitioners for grant of permanency in service is liable to be rejected and is rightly rejected by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
(24) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
Honourable Apex Court has watered down the binding effect of the judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Umadevi & ors. (cited supra) . The Honourable Apex Court, while dealing with the same has observed that the comments and observations made in Pooran Chandra Pandey case should be read as obiter and should neither be treated as binding by the High Courts, Tribunals and other judicial foras nor should they be relied upon or made the basis for bypassing the principles laid down in Umadevi (3) (cited supra).
(25) W.P. No.8853/2013, etc.
impartial, through a written examination, or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made. The petitioners' claim for permanency, if tested in the light of above principle which is laid down by the Apex Court, same is liable to be rejected as their entry into employment is as a bonded candidate.
error of law or any ground calling for interference in the view taken by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal while dismissing the Original Applications preferred by the petitioners.
dismissed. Rule stands discharged. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
N.W. SAMBRE R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE
amj/wp8853.13
3 issues framed by the court
Whether execution of a bond by nursing candidates entitles them to regularization of service after completing the bond period.
Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation can compel the State to regularize bonded nurses despite established recruitment policies.
Whether past irregular practices by the State Government confer a legal right for current petitioners to claim permanent employment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Umadevi & ors.Explained¶52
Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Umadevi & ors., 2006 (4) SCC 1 · Who else cites this
A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies & ors.Explained¶54
A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies & ors., (2004) 7 SCC 112 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. & anr. vs. Santosh Kumar Mishra & anr.Distinguished¶98
State of U.P. & anr. vs. Santosh Kumar Mishra & anr., 2010 (9) SCC 52 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab vs. Nestle India LimitedDistinguished¶98
State of Punjab vs. Nestle India Limited, 2004 AIR (SC) 4559 · Who else cites this
Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations & ors. vs. Union of India & ors.Distinguished¶98
Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations & ors. vs. Union of India & ors., 2006 AIR (SC) 2945 · Who else cites this
Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Umadevi & ors.Referred¶99
Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Umadevi & ors., 2006 AIR (SC) 1806 · Who else cites this
Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & ors.Applied¶114
Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & ors., (2008) 10 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Pooran Chandra PandeyExplained¶114
Pooran Chandra Pandey, (2007) 11 SCC 92 · Who else cites this
Megha Chandrakant Kale ors.
State of Maharashtra
R.M. Borde
N.W. Sambre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
