1 W.P. 1032/99 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1032 OF 1999 Arvind S/o Supdu Badgujar .... PETITIONER Age : 47 Yrs. Occ. Service as Instructor in Gram Vikas Vidyalaya, Pimpalgaon (Hareshwar), Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. VERSUS 1. Gram Vikas Mandal, Pimpalgaon (Hareshwar) Taluka Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon through its President. 2. Gram Vikas Mandal, Pimpalgaon (Hareshwar) Taluka Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon through its Head Master. 3. The Dy. Director of Technical Education and Training Regional Office Near Gold Club, Agra Road, Nasik, Dist. Nasik. 4. The State of Maharashtra. .... RESPONDENTS 2 W.P. 1032/99 - ( J ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.V.G.Sakolkar,, Advocate holding for Mr. petitioner. Mrs. R.K.Ladda, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. L.V.Sangit, Advocate for respondent no. 1 & 2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 09/08/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. The petitioner seeks directions against respondent nos. 1 and 2 to continue the petitioner in service from 1/8/1982 and pay him all consequential benefits including increments. 2. The petitioner initially was appointed in the year 1981. Thereafter, was continued from year to year. On 30/4/1991, the petitioner was terminated. The petitioner preferred Appeal before the School Tribunal ( For short, ‘ Tribunal ’ ). The Tribunal partly allowed the said Appeal and granted the relief of reinstatement. The petitioner claims that in spite of the appeal being allowed, the respondents are not giving him the continuity in service since 1982 and consequential benefits treating his services since 1982. 3 W.P. 1032/99 - ( J ) 3. Mr. Sangit, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 contends that his services initially were as a part time lecturer and he was continued as part time lecturer. As such, he can not be given benefit of such service. 4. Perusal of the Judgment of the School Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has observed as under : " It appears that the appellant was not selected in the last interview. According to the appellant, it was the practice of the management to terminate services and against call for the interview. The various appointment orders issued to the appellant almost from 1982 clearly indicates that there was a clear vacancy. When there is clear vacancy and what was the necessity to issue the termination and again publish advertisement. No reason is given by the management. When the appellant imputes all that was farce, but the management has not shown that the post was for a particular period and he was selected only for that period. Besides the appellant imputes the appointments given to other without following proper procedure for the said periods, by making a farce with intention to deprive the appellant of his job. Management has to show that when there was last 4 W.P. 1032/99 - ( J ) interview and in the last advertisement there was no post and because the appellant applied for it but he can not claim over that post. The repeated appointment orders and termination orders clearly indicates that these procedure were followed only with an intention for making appointments as per the whims and desires of the management and as per their own choice. When there is a clear vacancy and when the appellant has served for more than two years in my opinion the last procedure followed by the management in calling for interview and select the candidates itself is illegal and not according to law. So I treat the non selection after interview as otherwise termination ". 5. The Tribunal has observed that various appointment orders issued to the appellant from 1982 indicates that there was a clear vacancy. The respondent - management has not challenged the said order. 6. In view of the same, the petitioner would be entitled to the continuity of service since 1982, increments and other consequential benefits treating his services since 1982. 7. Respondent no. 3 to finalize the pensionary benefits of the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from today. The respondent - 5 W.P. 1032/99 - ( J ) Management shall prepare the papers within the period of 4 weeks and send the same to respondent no. 3 and who shall decide it within the period of 3 months thereafter. 8. Rule is made absolute on above terms with no order as to costs. 9. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, Civil Application does not survives and as such disposed off. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/ WP 1032.98