1 wp-4693-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 4693 OF 2009 Ms.Seema Dhanajirao Chavan ..Petitioner Vs. The Secretary, Palus Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.Pratap Patil Adv. for Petitioner Mr.Manish Jain Adv. for Mr.S.G.Deshmukh Adv. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.S.J.Rayarikar AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 7. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 4th , 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2. 2. On 12th July, 1995, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Educational Institution run by respondent no.1. It is her case that 2 wp-4693-09 she came to be terminated on 13th June, 2005. She filed appeal bearing Appeal No. 70 of 2008 challenging the said termination before the School Tribunal, Kolhapur. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the School Tribunal by judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2009. Being aggrieved thereby, this petition has been preferred. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1995 and she has been continuously working till 2005 therefore, she became permanent teacher and hence, her services could not have been terminated without following due procedure of law. Reliance was placed on Government Resolution dated 23rd November, 2005 and it was submitted that in view of the said Resolution, the petitioner was entitled to be absorbed in service as full time Assistant Teacher. 4. From the record, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed on clock hour basis and respondent no.3 District Vocational Education and Training Officer, Sangli also approved her appointment on clock-hour basis every academic year. It is clear that the petitioner was appointed on C.H.B. for every academic year and after the end of each academic year her services automatically came to an end by efflux of time as per contract of service. In every academic year the appellant had made application for the post and was interviewed and was appointed for one academic year only. Thus, her appointment orders were only for a 3 wp-4693-09 period of one year. From the appointment orders, it is clear that she was never appointed as full time Teacher. 5. From the material on record, it is seen that the petitioner was a purely ad hoc/temporary employee whose services were terminable by the end of each academic year, therefore, she cannot become a permanent employee though she rendered service for ten academic years. At all times, she was an ad hoc and temporary employee. An ad hoc and temporary employee cannot have a right of permanency though such a employee has rendered continuous service for number of years. In this context, I may refer to the decision in Shrikrishna Dnyandeo Lad Vs. Chairman, Rahimatpur Panchkrushi Shikshan Mandal and others; 2008 (5) ALLMR 282 in which this Court held that if the petitioner appointed on temporary basis is working continuously for six academic years and at the end of every academic year, his tenure of employment comes to an end by efflux of time, such employee who was never appointed on a probation period, cannot claim status of a permanent teacher. 6. Considering the nature of appointment and the law laid down by this Court, it is clear that the petitioner was never a permanent employee of the respondent nos.1 and 2. All the while, she was an ad hoc/temporary employee and therefore, she has no right to claim permanency in service. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of 4 wp-4693-09 Government Resolution dated 23rd November, 2005, the petitioner could not have been terminated. The said Government Resolution states that those who are in employment since prior to 2002-2003 on clock hour basis, if they satisfy the eligibility criteria of full time teacher, they should be absorbed. As far as the Government Resolution on which reliance has been placed is concerned, the Government Resolution is dated 23rd November, 2005. Admittedly, the petitioner was terminated on 13th June, 2005 i.e. much earlier to the Resolution, hence, the Tribunal has rightly observed that petitioner would not be covered by the said Resolution as the petitioner was not in service when the Government Resolution was issued and the Government Resolution would apply only to those C.H.B. Teachers who were in service on 23rd November, 2005. Moreover, the Government Resolution states that appointment to the said post have to be made as per prescribed procedure. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not appear for any interview after the Government Resolution was issued, hence, she now cannot claim any benefit from the Government Resolution. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had preferred writ petition No.5584 of 2006 wherein it was held that she was eligible for the post of full time Assistant Teacher. He has submitted that after her termination, another Teacher came to be appointed, 5 wp-4693-09 whereas the petitioner ought to have been appointed. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that in the year 2005-2006, interviews of eligible candidates were taken for the appointment of full time Teacher. However, the petitioner did not appear for the said interview. In the said interview, another Teacher came to be appointed after going through the selection procedure. Thus, the fact that another person was appointed on the said post would not help the petitioner in any manner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she was terminated and she has challenged this order of termination before the Tribunal. So far as her contention regarding the observations of their Lordships that the petitioner is eligible to be appointed as a full time Teacher are concerned, after the Government Resolution was issued on 23rd November, 2005, the petitioner did not make any application to Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 after the post was notified and published in “Daily Pudhari ” dated 14 th September, 2000. The Government Resolution specifically states that the post is to be filled in as per prescribed procedure and it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not appeared for any interview. Moreover, the observations in W.P. No. 5584 of 2006 would always be subject to roster. Admittedly, the petitioner is from open category. It is clear that all the time, the petitioner was appointed on clock-hour basis for every academic year and after expiry of each academic year, her services automatically 6 wp-4693-09 came to an end by efflux of time. The material on record shows that she was working on an ad-hoc/temporary basis, hence, she cannot claim any right of permanency in service. The Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant i.e petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement in service with consequential benefits as prayed for by her. The order impugned in this petition, does not call for any interference. Writ petition is dismissed. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]