1 WP NO.106/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.106 OF 2011 Shreeram s/o Sakharam Khandre, Age: 42 years, Occu: Service, r/o. At M.H.B. Colony, Central Excise Quarter, H.No.57, Peer Bazar, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Secretary, Vijay Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, At Kumbharwada, Aurangpura, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. 2. The Principal, Dagdoji Deshmukh Art Mahavidyalaya, at Waluj, Tq. and Dist: Aurangabad. 3. The Registrar, Central Administrative and inquiry Department, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. 4. The Joint Director of Higher Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS ... 2 WP NO.106/2011 Shri S.R.Kolhare, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.N.K.Chaudhari, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 24/11/2011 *** Date of reserving the judgment:15/11/2011 Date of pronouncing judgment:24/11/2011 *** JUDGMENT: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. The writ petitioner questions legality of the order dated 1st Dec.,2010, passed in Appeal No.2/2010 by the learned Presiding Officer, College and University Tribunal at Aurangabad, and the order of termination dated June 27th, 2009, passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 - the college management. He has urged to reinstate him to his original position as Lecturer in Library Science in respondent no.2 college with all consequential benefits, including salary and back-wages. 3. The petitioner acquired M.Lib. in March/April, 2002 and M.Phill. in April, 2007 from Maduraj Kamraj University and claimed that 3 WP NO.106/2011 he is qualified for the post of Lecturer in Library and Information Science, vide Government Resolution dated 5th Sept.,2006. The petitioner belongs Scheduled Caste, recognized as such, under Constitutional Order of 1950. An advertisement was carried by the respondent in Daily Sakal dated August 30th, 2005, for the post of Lecturer in Library Science meant for Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner, in response to the aforesaid advertisement, complied the formalities, he was selected by the Selection Committee in the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category, though he belongs to Scheduled Caste. He served with the management for the academic year 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The petitioner claims, without any appointment order, he served as a Lecturer; he was referred as contractual employee. According to petitioner, inspite of backlog of Scheduled Caste category in the respondent management, to deprive his legitimate right, the management again caused an advertisement published on 4th March, 2009, in daily Sakal and deprived the claim and contentions of the petitioner. He was terminated, without assigning any reasons, branding him to be appointed against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category on contractual basis. 4 WP NO.106/2011 4. The respondent claimed that it is bound to follow mandate of the Government in respect of reservation of posts while making appointments for the post of Lecturers in the college in a particular category. There were two posts of Lecturers in the Library Science which were advertised; one was of Open category and, another of Scheduled Tribes category. Since there was no availability of eligible candidate from Scheduled Tribes category, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on contractual basis. The petitioner, was made clear that said appointment was made on contractual basis in tune with the Government Resolution and it was for one year against the Scheduled Tribe category post. It was so indicated in a communication/certificate dated 16.10.2005 that since respondent could not get eligible candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes category, to be appointed on the said post, he was appointed temporarily on contractual basis. 5. The petitioner claimed that the post was, indeed, reserved for Scheduled Caste category, surfaced from communication of the University dated 8th/11th Jan.,2008. 6. After extensively hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the record illustrates that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to 5 WP NO.106/2011 Government of Maharashtra policy as a Lecturer for a period of one year as no eligible candidate appeared for the interview, which was held on 16th Oct.,2005. Such approval was accordingly granted by the University for the said academic year. The Government by communication dated 6th July, 2007, to the University clarified that appointment of such contractual Lecturers would come to an end on 31st May, 2007. The petitioner, was informed of this position time to time by respondent nos. 1 and 2 and also was explained its inability to extend benefits available to the posts meant for Scheduled Tribe category to him and since petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category, he could not be illegally accommodated. The petitioner, as demonstrated herein-above, was appointed on purely temporary basis for a year, his services as Lecturer came to an end by efflux of time, which were naturally temporary for a particular period. This was more so, when the management was adhering to the mandate and resolution passed by the Government of Maharashtra and/or the University. 7. The petitioner has placed reliance to a letter dated 30th June, 2009, addressed to the Vice Chancellor of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, by Dr.D.R.Khairnar. This letter, indeed, 6 WP NO.106/2011 illustrated that the post to which the petitioner was appointed temporarily was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category and, consequently, since candidate was not available, it was not filled in. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance to the judgment of this Court in the matter of Shubhada Prabhakar Patil and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ( 2009 (4) Mh.L.J.788). It was a case of teacher who was within the bracket of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools ( Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, R.9(7) and (9) thereof. The Division Bench discussed rule of interchangeability and its applicability. Said judgment would not be applicable in the fact situation on two counts; firstly, in the present case, he was Lecturer in the college and, secondly, the post on which the petitioner was temporarily appointed, to his knowledge, was meant for Scheduled Tribe category. It was a time gap arrangement and since no candidate in the said scheme was available, the petitioner came to be appointed on contractual basis. The appointment letter, to which reference is given, indeed, has categorically informed the petitioner that the Rules of the Government and the University would be applicable; his appointment is for a period of one year against Scheduled 7 WP NO.106/2011 Tribe Post for temporary period. 9. Taking survey of these facts, the order of termination does not call for interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/106-11wp