1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3964 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 13.06.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The Respondent No.1 runs the Respondent No.2 College. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Clerk on 1.4.1998. Thereafter, on retirement of Mr.Thokal, the petitioner was appointed with effect from 1.1.2005 in his place. The petitioner was not being made permanent, as such the petitioner filed complaint under the provisions of MRTU and PULP Act, seeking directions against the Respondents to give status of a permanent employee to the petitioner. The Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, dismissed the 2 complaint. 3. Mr.Shelke, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the petitioner is continuously working since the year 1998 on a vacant post. The Tribunal has taken a very hypertechnical approach. The Respondent No.1 is a minority institution and has every right to appoint a person of his choice. The act of the Respondents in not giving status of a permanent employee to the petitioner amounts to unfair labour practice. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have perused the impugned judgment. The petitioner could not show that he was appointed by following proper procedure i.e. by advertisement. It is claimed that Respondent No. 1 is a minority institution, still, the procedure has to be followed. The Respondent No.3 had communicated to the Respondent No.2 directing to fill up the post by direct recruitment by following the procedure. Though the petitioner came out with a case that his appointment was pursuant to the advertisement in the newspaper 3 but nothing is produced on record to establish this fact. In view of that fact, approval could not be given. The post was a single post. Even the Respondent No.3 time and again communicated to the Respondent No.1 stating that there is no provision to make direct appointment in the manner in which the complainant was appointed and as such sanction to the appointment of the complainant was not given. 5. In view of the fact that the complainant could not establish that his appointment was pursuant to any advertisement or by following the proper procedure. The order passed by the Industrial Court could not be faulted. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.13.06.2011. asp/office/wp3964.11 4