Petitioner challenged a fresh contractual appointment order issued by the District Collector. The High Court held that since the appointment was contractual, no permanent right accrued, and the dismissal was in merit.
The writ petition was summarily dismissed with no costs.
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 / 4 29-WP 4793.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4793 OF 2019
(Bhaskar S/o. Janardhanrao Vaidya vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.)
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's Orders.
Mr. A. S. Dhore, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. D. P. Thakare, Addl. G. P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
CORAM :SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE :05/10/2021
Heard.
2.The petitioner is aggrieved by his fresh
appointment at the office of the Panchayat Samiti,
Daryapur, which has been made by the Collector,
Amravati by order dated 29/11/2017. The petitioner was
initially appointed on contract basis as a Data Entry
Operator and lateron, again he was appointed on contract
basis on the post of Assistant Programming Officer. Such
an appointment of the petitioner was for carrying out the
object of Employment Guarantee Scheme of the
Government and therefore, his posting was made in
Panchayat Samiti. Some time later, the Controlling
Officer i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati found that
KOLHE
2 / 4 29-WP 4793.2019
the services of the petitioner were no longer required by
the Employment Guarantee Scheme branch of the
Government and therefore, he directed the District
Collector Amravati to terminate the services of the
petitioner with immediate effect vide its communication
dated 12/10/2017. The communication, however, was
not completely acted upon by the District Collector,
Amravati and instead of terminating the services of the
petitioner, he issued a fresh appointment order on
contractual basis to the petitioner, which is under
challenge in the present petition. This fresh appointment
order appears to have been wrongly taken by the
petitioner as his transfer order.
3.It appears to us that the calamity that was
about to befall the petitioner by virtue of the
communication dated 12/10/2017 issued by the
Divisional Commissioner, Amravati has been averted by
the District Collector, Amravati when he graciously issued
a fresh appointment order to the petitioner. But, the
petitioner instead of accepting the fresh appointment,
chose to challenge the same and the challenge was
rejected by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and
rightly so. In paragraph 8 of the impugned order passed
by the Tribunal, it is held that as there was no work for
Assistant Programming Officer, the applicant was
repatriated to the office of respondent No.4 and as there
KOLHE
3 / 4 29-WP 4793.2019
was no work to accommodate the petitioner even there,
the petitioner was transferred to Panchayat Samiti,
Daryapur.
4.Except for the mistake that the communication
dated 29/11/2017 was wrongly treated as transfer order
by the Tribunal, the reasons given by the Tribunal and the
conclusions made in its order, in our opinion, are correct.
When the initial appointment of the petitioner was on
contractual basis, no right was created in favour of the
petitioner to continue with the said appointment and
therefore, his termination from his first appointment on
the ground that his services were no longer required at
the place where he was initially appointed, could not be
questioned by him. The decision taken by the Divisional
Commissioner for discontinuation of the services of the
petitioner was not for any such reasons as were stigmatic
to the petitioner, but, was for the reasons which were of
necessity. Therefore, such a decision could not have been
challenged in any manner by the petitioner and that if the
decision had been really implemented in its letter and
spirit by the District Collector, Amravati, the petitioner
would have lost his contractual job altogether. The
District Collector, Amravati, however, in his wisdom and
out of compassion for the petitioner thought it fit to issue
the fresh appointment order, within his power, to the
petitioner and even this appointment order, which was
KOLHE
4 / 4 29-WP 4793.2019
issued for the benefit of the petitioner, unfortunately has
not been taken by him in its right spirit. If this is the case,
the petitioner would have to blame none, but himself.
5.Thus, we find that there is no merit in the
present petition. The Writ Petition is summarily dismissed.
No costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
KOLHE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a fresh contractual appointment issued to a petitioner after termination can sustain a writ challenge as a wrongful transfer.
Bhaskar S/o. Janardhanrao Vaidya
State of Maharashtra
Sunil B. Shukre
Anil S. Kilor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court