This writ petition challenged the termination of a contractual appointment and the subsequent non-appointment of the petitioner. The court held that the tenurial period had ended, and no case existed for interference given fresh recruitment steps.
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.
hvn
1
931-wp-3264.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3264 OF 2017
Smt. Deepika Dattaram Gurav … Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the petitioners.
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, AGP for the respondent State.
CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DECEMBER 13, 2017
P.C.:
Petitioner was appointed for 11 months on contract basis vide order dated 2.5.2015 Exhibit “D”. During the subsistence of the contract period, vide order dated 09.10.2015, the petitioner's services were terminated and instead respondent no. 5 was appointed.
hvn 2
931-wp-3264.2017
for the petitioner as also the learned AGP, we find that the petitioner's tenure of contractual appointment after expiry of 11 months has already come to an end. In the circumstances, no case is made out to interfere in the matter when the decision has been taken even to cancel the appointment of the 5th respondent and to issue fresh advertisement.
(R.G. KETKAR, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere when a petitioner's contractual tenure has expired and fresh steps for appointment are being taken.
Smt. Deepika Dattaram Gurav
State of Maharashtra
Ors.
Shantanu Kemkar
R.G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
