WP/5220/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5220 OF 2011 ASLAM USMAN SHAIKH AND ORS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Tungar Nikhelish N. AGP for Respondents: Smt. Shinde V.A. ... CORAM : D B BHOSALE & S B DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated: August 02, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to quash the advertisement dated 25.5.2011 (Exhibit "D" to the petition) for filling the vacancies of Teacher's category (Shikshan Sevak) in Government Ashram Schools. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are working as Teachers in Government Ashram Schools for more than five years on contract basis. Vide Circular dated 28.7.2008 (Exhibit "A" to the petition) the Government has directed the concerned to submit a proposal for regularization of the services of Shikshan Sevaks who have served for more than five years. According to the petitioners, based on the said communication / circular at Exhibit "A" to the petition, they made WP/5220/2011 2 representations to the concerned authorities. When, according to the petitioners, no decision was taken on their representations, they had preferred Writ Petition No.8650 of 2009 and sought directions to regularize their services. This Court vide order dated 22.2.2010 directed respondent 2 therein to consider the representation made by the petitioners pursuant to Exhibit "A". The petitioners further submits that, however, the Government by issuing another communication dated 13.1.2010 (Exhibit "C" to the petition) amended the earlier circular Exhibit "A" to the petition after the clause "employees who have completed five years of service" inserted the clause "and whose appointments are made after following the prescribed procedure be regularized in service". Based on the communication Exhibit "C" representations made by the petitioners were rejected by respondent 2 on 9.5.2011. Thereafter, advertisement dated 25.5.2011 was issued for filling the posts as stated earlier. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 4. On behalf of respondents, learned AGP has submitted that the appointments of the petitioners were purely on clock hour / contract basis and therefore, no right can be said to have accrued to them in respect of regular appointments. She has justified the rejection of representations on 9.5.2011 by respondent on the basis of communication at Exhibit "C" to the petition WP/5220/2011 3 5. We have gone through the petition and annexures thereto. The appointment orders of the petitioners are annexed with the petition (Exhibit "E" colly). Bare perusal of the said appointments orders reveal that the petitioners were appointed purely on clock hour / contract basis by way of stop gap arrangement to avoid educational loss to the students with further understanding that no right of any sort will be accrued to them for claiming regularization in future. This Court so also the Apex Court has time and again held that stop gap / contract / clock hour appointees have no right to claim regularization in service. Further, there is no serious dispute over the proposition that appointments of the petitioners were not made after following the due process of law i.e. advertisement, test, interview etc. In this view of the matter, the petition sans merits and needs to be dismissed. 6. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) ... akl