1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2645 OF 2007 Lata Rambhau Wakale, R/o-Wakale Nivas, Ahilyanagar, Gaon Partur, Dist-Jalna. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Director of Vocational Education and Training, M.S. Mumbai, 3) The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Aurangabad, 4) The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Partur, Tq-Partur, Dist-Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2576 OF 2007 Mahadeo Gangaram Pawar, R/o-ITI Sengaon, Dist-Hingoli. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 2 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Director of Vocational Education and Training, M.S. Mumbai, 3) The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Aurangabad, 4) The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Sengaon, Dist-Hingoli. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2586 OF 2007 Shankar s/o Dnyanoba Thombre, R/o-Hanuman Gally, Keij, Dist-Beed. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Director of Vocational Education and Training, M.S. Mumbai, 3) The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Aurangabad, 4) The Principal, Government Technical High School Centre, Keij, Dist-Beed. ...RESPONDENTS. 3 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2646 OF 2007 Anjali d/o Asaramji Bajaj, R/o-Pralhadpur Nagar, Opp. Guest House, Partur, Dist-Jalna, ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Director of Vocational Education and Training, M.S. Mumbai, 3) The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Aurangabad, 4) The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Partur, Dist-Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2647 OF 2007 Shaikh Feroz Faruque Ahemed, R/o-Government I.T.I. Ghansavangi, Dist-Jalna. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 4 2) The Director of Vocational Education and Training, M.S. Mumbai, 3) The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Aurangabad, 4) The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Ghansavangi, Dist-Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2648 OF 2007 Sachin Somnath Burange, R/o-Government Technical High School Centre, Paranda, Dist-Osmanabad ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Director of Vocational Education and Training, Mahapalika Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai, 3) The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Aurangabad, 4) The Head Master, Government Technical High School Centre, Paranda, Dist-Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS. 5 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2650 OF 2007 Ratnakar s/o Vishnupant Sutar, R/o-Government I.T.I. Jalna, Dist-Jalna. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Director of Vocational Education and Training, M.S. Mumbai, 3) The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Aurangabad, 4) The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Jalna, Dist-Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2651 OF 2007 Pandharinath s/o Tulashidas Sukanikar, R/o-Government I.T.I., Udgir, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 6 2) The Director of Vocational Education and Training, M.S. Mumbai, 3) The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Aurangabad, 4) The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Udgir, Dist-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2652 OF 2007 Vijaykumar s/o Nagnath Limkar, R/o-Government I.T.I. Aundha Nagnath, Dist-Hingoli. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Director of Vocational Education and Training, M.S. Mumbai, 3) The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Aurangabad, 4) The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Aundha Nagnath, Dist-Hingoli. ...RESPONDENTS. 7 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2654 OF 2007 Santosh s/o Sandipan Hole, R/o-Dattanagar, Kalamb, Tq-Kalamb, Dist-Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Director of Vocational Education and Training, M.S. Mumbai, 3) The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Aurangabad, 4) The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Kalamb, Tq-Kalamb, Dist-Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2748 OF 2007 Manohar s/o Bhaurao Umarkar, R/o-Government I.T.I. Nandurbar, Dist-Nandurbar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 8 2) The Director of Vocational Education and Training, M.S. Mumbai, 3) The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Nashik, 4) The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Nandurbar, Dist-Nandurbar. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2749 OF 2007 Rajesh s/o Sumantrao Kulkarni, R/o-Government I.T.I. Omerga, Dist-Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Director of Vocational Education and Training, M.S. Mumbai, 3) The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Aurangabad, 4) The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Omerga, Dist-Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS. 9 ... Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioners in all these Writ Petitions. Shri. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondents in all these Writ Petitions. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 29TH MARCH, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners were working on clock hour basis and they were continued as such for so many years. The Petitioners approached the Tribunal with the prayer that they shall not be replaced by any ad-hoc employees. 3. Shri Talekar, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that main matter arising out of the group of 29 matters, being Original Application No.427 of 2000 was decided by the 10 Tribunal and the said order applies to all these Petitioners and therefore these Petitions were preferred in this Court and order passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No.427 of 2000 was annexed to the Petitions. Learned counsel further submits a chart demonstrating that except Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2571 of 2007, 2649 of 2007 and 2653 of 2007, none is in service. Learned A.G.P. seeks time to take instructions whether the Petitioners in the above referred Petitions are in service or not. 4. Learned A.G.P. submits on instructions, that regular candidates have been appointed in place of all these Petitioners and therefore the Petitioners are no more in service. In the submissions of learned A.G.P., the Petitioners were working on clock hour basis, the Tribunal considered the issue and rightly rejected the contentions of the Petitioners. 5. It is contended that the Petitioners have 11 no right to post and as regular candidates were appointed, the prayers of the Petitioners will not survive. 6. Learned counsel Shri Talekar has further raised issue that the Petitioners be paid equal pay for equal work as the Petitioners have practically discharged work which was assigned to the regular employees. 7. The Tribunal considered the issue raised in the light of the Judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, reported in 2006 A.I.R. S.C.W. Page 1991, and dismissed the original applications. From the record placed before us, it is clear that the Petitioners were working on clock hour basis. They were neither regularly employed nor selected by following procedure prescribed by the State. The Tribunal accordingly considered the cases of the similarly situated persons. The Petitioners have ceased to be discharging the duties on clock 12 hour basis. In the light of the view adopted by the Tribunal, we find that no interference is called for. All the Petitions are dismissed. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/MAR10/wp2645.07