(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5639 of 2009 Uttam s/o Shankar Gawali, Age: 30 years, Occu: Service, r/o. Polytechnic Quarter No.20, Polytechnic College Campus, Osmanabad District Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, Through its Registrar. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.S.Jadhavar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Tambe, AGP, for respondent State. Mr. S.S.Thombre, Adv., for respondent no.2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2009. *** PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner was appointed for eleven (2) months by communication dt.22.3.2007 by respondent Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University as a Lecturer in the subject of Chemistry. By communication dt.15/19th March, 2008, the Registrar of the University communicated to the petitioner that the Vice Chancellor had continued him as a Lecturer w.e.f.25.2.2008 to 31st May, 2008 and, by further communication dt.12.6.2008, his services were continued from 5.6.2008, till the end of academic year 2008-2009 on condition that petitioner would not claim any permanency benefits arising out of his continuation. 3. The respondent University issued an advertisement on 31st Jan.,2009, inviting applications in prescribed proforma for various posts of teaching and non teaching category, created from the University funds, for a period of five years, in various Departments of the University and Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Sub Center at Osmanabad. One of the post was relating to appointment of Lecturer in Chemistry. The petitioner, admittedly, applied to the said post against the said advertisement. But, the petitioner was not called for interview as his application was rejected, as he was found to be not eligible. The University selected the candidates, including a candidate as a Lecturer in the subject of Chemistry and issued - (3) appointment orders on 24.8.2009. The selected person joined the services accordingly. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Shri Jadhavar, placing reliance on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh ( AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 2130, submitted that an ad hoc or temporary employee cannot be replaced by appointing another person as ad hoc unless the post is vacant and is filled in by way of regular employment. According to the Counsel, the University is appointing the candidates for a period of five years, which would be a temporary appointment and, therefore, the University's action of issuance of advertisement and recruitment of staff, and discontinuing the petitioner, has to be held to be illegal. 5. The respondent University filed affidavit in reply. Learned Counsel for the University Shri Thombre submitted that though certain posts are vacant with the University, the State is yet to recognize/sanction the said posts. As need was felt by the University, out of the University funds, the recruitment was initiated and qualified persons in the teaching and non teaching staff were selected. In respect of the Lecturer to be appointed in the subject of Chemistry, the University wanted a person having (4) NET/SET qualification and, as University could get the necessary candidate of required qualification, the petitioner was appointed. According to the Counsel, the petitioner is not a person having passed NET/SET, he is not a qualified person, to be appointed as a Lecturer in Chemistry. The Counsel submitted that, the petitioner applied against the advertisement, which was issued in the month of Jan.,2009. The petitioner has no right in law to challenge the very selection process in which he had participated. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced, perused the judgments cited before us. We find substance in the submissions advanced by the University. The University, in the advertisement itself, made it clear that the posts are being filled in out of University funds and, according to the Counsel, as the Government has to yet sanction and recognize the posts, which are vacant, the University will have to bear the expenses of appointing these persons out of University funds and, with this view in mind, the University had advertised the posts for appointing candidates for a period of five years. A clear idea was given to the candidates as regards nature of appointment. The Counsel appearing for the University further submitted that, during the period of these five years, the University would undertake exercise of getting - (5) recognition/sanction from the State to these posts and if necessary sanction is accorded, the University may take further decision regarding employment of these persons. 7. We do not find any error in the selection process undertaken by the University. The petitioner does not have any right to the post. The Petition is dismissed. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H.PATIL, J.] ... agp/wp5639-09