1 WP 3597 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3597 of 2009 Sau.Kanta Dhanajjayrao Gadekar ..... Petitioner V/s. General Secretary, Shri Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.G.N.Salunke, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for the respondent – State. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 17TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that she should be treated as a full time teacher with effect from the date of her first appointment i.e. 06-10-1989 and all consequential benefits be granted to her on the said basis. 2. The facts necessary to be stated for an adjudication of the above petition, are stated thus : - The petitioner possesses qualification of M.A. in Marathi in Second Class. The petitioner has also passed B.Ed. Examination in First Class some time in April 1982 from the Shivaji University. By an appointment order dated 23-11-1989, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein were pleased to appoint the petitioner on clock-hour basis with effect from 2 WP 3597 of 2009 06-10-1989 to the conclusion of the academic year, in the year 1990. The respondent No.5 vide an order dated 21-09-1990 was pleased to accord approval to the said appointment of the petitioner. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner’s continuation has also been approved from time to time upto this day, albeit on a clock-hour basis. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of having worked for 18 years, the petitioner has not been given a permanent appointment or a regular appointment. 3. In the context of the relevant claim in the above petition, the management i.e. respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit, though a rambling stand is sought to be taken in the affidavit, the underlying tone of the said affidavit as can be deciphered is that though, a proposal was sent by the respondent No.2 Management to the concerned authorities of the State Government for the appointment of the petitioner on a regular basis, the said proposal has not met with favourable response from the concerned authorities of the State Government. 4. On behalf of the Education authorities, an affidavit has been filed by one Shri Sheshanarayan Ginyandeo Devadkar, In-charge Director, Vocational Education in the Directorate of Vocational Education and Training. In the said affidavit, it has been mentioned that in terms of the Government Resolution dated 23-11-2005, the Government has sanctioned 100 posts for language teachers who fulfill the criteria 3 WP 3597 of 2009 mentioned in the said Government Resolution. However, the institution wherein the petitioner is attached, did not get a post out of the said 100 posts as it did not fulfill the aforesaid criteria. The affiant further goes on to state that by a Government Resolution dated 27-10-1988, the Government has sanctioned two posts of language teacher (one for Marathi and one for English) in the institutions imparting minimum competency vocational courses. It is further averred that the said posts were on clock-hour basis and ad-hoc temporary appointment and therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief that she claims in the above petition. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the proceedings including the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents. The facts as disclosed point out that the petitioner has been working uninterruptedly for the last 18 years on clock-hour basis and therefore, it is an unfortunate case where a teacher after having worked for 18 years, is still working on temporary clock-hour basis without being granted the benefits which are attendant to a permanent post. In our view, the manner in which the petitioner has been treated cannot be countenanced. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner has worked uninterruptedly for 18 years and is now on the verge of retirement, as she is to superannuate on 30-09-2010, in our view, 4 WP 3597 of 2009 interest of justice would be served if notwithstanding what is contained in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the respondent No.2 is directed to submit a fresh proposal to the respondent No.4 for seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner on a regular basis. If such a proposal is submitted by the respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from date, the respondent No.4 or the concerned authorities would decide the same within a period of two weeks thereafter, without being swayed by the stand taken by the concerned respondents in their respective affidavits in the above petition. The authorities would be well advised to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been working uninterruptedly since the last 18 years on a clock-hour basis. We accordingly dispose of the petition by issuing the directions as above. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent with parties to bear their respective costs. 6. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )