1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5046 of 2010 Raju Namdeo Ingale and six others VERSUS Maharashtra Prathamik Shikshan Parishad and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R. L. Khapre, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Amol Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent no.2 Mr. V. B. Bhise, Advocate for the respondent nos.3 to 7. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 3rd August, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent no.2-Zilla Parishad, Washim to appoint and continue the services of the petitioner nos.1 to 6 as Junior Engineer and of the petitioner no.7 as an Executive Engineer in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, till such scheme is in operation. The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan scheme is floated by the Central Government and is implemented through the respondent nos. 1 and 2. In pursuance of this scheme, the respondent no.2- Zilla Parishad issued an advertisement to appoint the Junior Engineers on six posts and an Executive Engineer on one post. The petitioner nos.1 to 6 were selected and appointed as Junior Engineers, whereas the petitioner no.7 was selected and appointed as an 2 Executive Engineer, in the year 2005. It is the case of the petitioners that the staff, appointed on contract basis under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was to be continued on contract basis for a period of six months and by giving a technical break of one day, was entitled to be re- appointed. It is the case of the petitioners that the authorities were entitled to take strict action against the persons, whose services were not satisfactory or in case they committed any act of a serious nature. Since, the services of the petitioners were not continued on the basis of some adverse reports, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2446 of 2010. Since, there were contradictory certificates issued by the Block Development Officers in regard to the services of the petitioners, this Court by an order dated 03.09.2010, directed the respondents to consider the performance of the petitioners, afresh on the basis of the available record and pass appropriate orders. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 03.09.2010, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim, by the report dated 16.09.2010, held that the work of the petitioner nos.1 to 6 and 7 as Junior Engineers and Executive Engineer, respectively, was found to be unsatisfactory. The report of the Chief Executive Officer, dated 16.09.2010, is challenged in the instant writ petition. 3 It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the Circular, dated 12.12.2005, the respondents ought to have re-appointed the petitioners on the respective posts by giving a technical break of one day and in case the Chief Executive Officer or the Block Development Officer was of the view that the services of the petitioners were not satisfactory, it is necessary to take strict action against the petitioners by giving an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing, before the Chief Executive Officer submitted the report dated 16.09.2010. Mr. Amol Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Mr. V. B. Bhise, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 7, the newly appointed Junior Engineers, submitted that the report dated 16.09.2010 was duly prepared by the Chief Executive Officer after considering the service record of the petitioners and in pursuance of the Circular dated 12.12.2005, it was not necessary to take any strict action against the petitioners. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no.2 that as the services of the petitioners were found to be unsatisfactory, they were not continued in service. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order passed by this Court on 03.09.2010 as also the report dated 4 16.09.2010 along with the Circular dated 12.12.2005, it appears that the petitioners could not have claimed continuation on the post of Junior Engineer as of a right. On perusal of the Circular dated 12.12.2005, it appears that the appointees were entitled to be continued with a technical break and in case the services of the appointees were not found to be satisfactory, it is observed in the Circular that there was no difficulty in taking action against them. This, however, does not mean that it was necessary for the authorities to take action against the appointees, whose work was not found to be satisfactory, after giving them an opportunity of being heard. It appears from the Circular dated 12.12.2005 that it was not necessary for the authorities to take action against the appointees for unsatisfactory work. In any case, we feel that the petitioners do not have any right to seek continuation on the posts on which they were appointed, as their work was not found to be satisfactory. On the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2446/2010, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim, considered the service record of the petitioners and found that the services of the petitioners were unsatisfactory. The judgment reported in A.I.R. 2000 Supreme Court 1401 (Nar Singh Pal .vs. Union of India and others), and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as the employee in the reported case was prosecuted for a criminal 5 offence on an allegation of assaulting a Gate-man on duty and the termination on this basis was found to be illegal as no Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the employee. In the afore-stated set of facts, the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale