1 WP 1646.1995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1646 OF 1995 Sahebrao Maroti Shelar ... Petitioner Versus Khed Taluka Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. L.T. Satelkar for the Petitioner. Mr.Mandor Limaye i/b R.S. Apte for the Respondent No.1 & 2. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATED : 30th July, 2009. P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2. 2 The petitioner was employed as Lecturer in the Educational Institution of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is an Educational Institution and it runs Hutatma Rajguru Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as “the College”). The respondent No.2 is the Principal of the said College. The said College has Junior College as well as Senior College. Pursuant to advertisement published by respondent No.1 in daily “Sakal” dated 23.05.1992, the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Physics. The petitioner was called for interview thereafter, he was selected and came to be appointed with effect from 15.07.1992 for a 2 WP 1646.1995 period of one year. Again advertisement came to be issued by respondent No.1 which was published in daily “Sakal” dated 11.05.1993 whereby two posts were advertised in the physics department. The petitioner was called for interview on 27.05.1993, he came to be selected and he was appointed as Lecturer in Physics on 30.06.1993 for a period of one year. However, on 13.01.1993 an order was served on the petitioner that due to fall in workload he was reduced to Clock-hour basis Lecturer. 3 Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 42 of 1993 before the College Tribunal. In the appeal it was prayed that, the impugned order of reduction in rank i.e. reducing the petitioner’s appointment as full time lecturer in physics to clock-hour basis be quashed and petitioner be restored to original post of full time lecturer in physics. The petitioner had also prayed that he may be granted difference in salary from the date of reduction in rank till the restoration to his original post. By Judgment and order dated 05.04.1994 the appeal came to be dismissed. Hence, this petition. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the post of Full Time Lecturer in Physics was reserved. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1991, 1992 and 1993 in the College as candidate from reserved category was not available. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as the petitioner was in continuous service for the period of three years in the post reserved for S.C. Candidate, as no 3 WP 1646.1995 candidate from S.C. was available for three years, the said post ought to have been dereserved and the appointment of the petitioner ought to be protected. As far as the contention of the petitioner is concerned that, he was appointed in the said college as Lecturer in 1991, no evidence has been led by him to show that he was indeed appointed in the said College in the year 1991. He has not produced his appointment letter or any other document to show that he was indeed appointed in the year 1991 by the College. The document in relation to his appointment shows, that the petitioner was appointed for the first time in the year 1992 pursuant to advertisement in the paper dated 23.05.1992. It is an admitted fact that the said post was reserved for a candidate from S.C. Category. Though the petitioner belongs to open category, as no candidate was available from the S.C. Category, the petitioner came to be appointed on a temporary basis as a Lecturer in Physics for a period of one year. In the appointment letter dated 15.07.1992, it is clearly mentioned that the said appointment is against a reserved category post. It was also mentioned in the appointment order that appointment was up to 30th April, 1993. The appointment order also mentions that the appointment is subject to availability of workload. Further it was stated therein that appointment was subject to final approval of the University. The approval letter from University Exhibit 14/3, dated 14.10.1992 shows that the appointment of the petitioner was approved for the period 22.07.1992 to the end of 4 WP 1646.1995 academic year 1992-93. 5 The appointment order of the petitioner dated 30.06.1993 also shows that petitioner was appointed against a reserved category post. The appointment order also shows that his appointment was for a period of one year and subject to availability of workload. 6 As observed earlier, there is no material on record to show that, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 in the College. The material on record shows that the petitioner was appointed for the first time in the year 1992. Admittedly, the petitioner who is from open category was appointed against reserved category post. In such case, obviously he would have no right to the post. The appointment letter makes it clear that he was appointed on ad-hoc basis and subject to the availability of the workload. In such case, if the workload is reduced the appointment of the appellant as a full time lecturer to clock hour basis cannot be faulted. 7 The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on some affidavits of students in support of his contention that there was sufficient work load and the petitioner was working as a full time lecturer. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that no witness has been examined to show that the appellant was working as full time lecturer. In my opinion, no cogent and reliable material has been brought on record by the petitioner in support of his contention. 5 WP 1646.1995 8 Looking to the fact that the petitioner was appointed in a reserve category post on adhoc basis and his appointment was subject to availability of work load, the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]