1502wp5147.10.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5147 OF 2010 Alka Prabhakarrao Ambalkar :: PETITIONER -: Versus :- The State of Maharashtra and 7 others. :: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri P. P. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A. M. Deshpande, A. G. P. for respondent No. 1. Shri V. P. Marpakwar, Advocate for respondents No. 2, 6 & 7. Mrs. A. P. Shinde, Advocate for respondents No. 3 & 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 15th FEBRUARY, 2011. ORAL ORDER : 1. This writ petition challenges judgment and order dated 22/7/2010 passed by the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur, dismissing appeal No. 1/2007 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged order dated 28/4/2007. whereby she was discharged from the service as a Lecturer. She claimed regularisation in service in terms of directions issued by the State Government contained in circulars dated 07/01/2005 and 31/5/2005. The selection and appointment of respondents No. 6 and 7 was also the subject matter 1502wp5147.10.odt 2/3 of challenge before the College Tribunal. 2. In respect of challenge to the communication dated 18/4/2007, the College Tribunal has recorded the finding that the appointment of the appellant was purely on contractual basis and it came to an end by efflux of time. So far as the claim for regularisation based upon the Government Circulars dated 07/01/2005 and 31/5/2005 was concerned, the College Tribunal has recorded finding that the appointment of the petitioner was not made by duly constituted selection committee for making appointments on regular basis. So far as the selection and appointment of respondents No. 6 and 7 was concerned, the College Tribunal has recorded the finding that it has no jurisdiction under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 to entertain such challenge. Thus, the appeal has been dismissed. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the appointment of the petitioner was made by duly constituted selection committee. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in holding that the appointment of the petitioner would not be regularised on the basis of the Government Circulars dated 07/01/2005 and 31/5/2005. Perusal of the advertisement shows that applications for the post of Lecturers were invited for selection and appointment on contractual basis. The Government Circular dated 07/01/2005 applies to a situation where the advertisement is issued for appointment on regular basis and thereafter, the candidates are selected for said post by duly constituted selection committee for making selection on regular basis, but the management appoints the candidate on contract basis. Such is not a situation here. The selection and appointment of the 1502wp5147.10.odt 3/3 petitioner was made by the committee constituted for appointment on contract basis. This was also one of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement and hence, no fault can be found with the view taken by the College Tribunal. 4. So far as the challenge to the selection and appointment of respondents No. 6 and 7 is concerned, the College Tribunal has recorded the finding that it has no jurisdiction under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act to deal with the aspect of this matter. Perusal of Section 59 clearly shows that such jurisdiction is not conferred upon the College Tribunal and hence, no fault can be found with the view. In the result, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE WWL