1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.805 OF 1994 Prof. Aditya Dinkarrao Shinde ] Residing at C/o Mr.Anand G. ] Bedadare, 76, Basrappa Peth, ] Satara. ]..Petitioner Vs. 1. The Joint Secretary, ] Rayat Shikshan Sanstha ] Satara. ] 2. The Principal, ] Balvanth College at ] Post Vita, Dist.Satara. ] 3. The Registrar, ] Shivaji University, ] University Campus ] Kolhapur. ] 4. Shri.H.B.Padate, ] Presiding Officer, ] College Tribunal, ] having his office at ] Pune University Campus, ] Pune. ]..Respondents .... Mr.L.T.Satelkar Adv. for Petitioner None for respondents though served. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The case of the petitioner is that after being interviewed, he was appointed on 1st April, 1989 as full time lecturer in Electronics in the Educational Institution run by respondent no.1. However, he was appointed against the reserved category post for a period of one year. Every year, advertisement was published and applications were invited for the post of full time lecturer in Electronics from reserved category candidates, however, as suitable candidate from reserved category was not found, the petitioner was appointed every year for a period of one year. The petitioner received a notice dated 16th January, 1993 stating that his services were terminated with effect from 21st January, 1993. 2. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.1 of 1992(S) before the College Tribunal. The College Tribunal by judgment and order dated 30th April, 1993 dismissed the Appeal. Hence, this petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that though he was appointed against reserved category post, his services came to be terminated as candidate was obtained by the respondent-Sanstha from reserved category. The petitioner claims that he could not have been terminated in view of the Government Circular dated 30th September, 1989. The 3 College Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Government Circular is not applicable to the petitioner as the petitioner belongs to the teaching staff and not administrative staff. 4. The case of the respondent-Institution is that as the petitioner who is from open category, was appointed in a reserved post as a candidate from reserved category was not available and as soon as suitable candidate from reserved category was available, the right of the petitioner to be appointed to the said post, ceased to exist. It was also contended that the Government Circular is not applicable to the petitioner as the said Circular is applicable only to Class-I, Class-II, Class-III and Class-IV posts and as the petitioner did not belong to Class-I to Class-IV, the Government Circular was not applicable to him. 5. To decide as to whether the petitioner can claim any right to the post of full time lecturer in Electronics, it would be necessary to advert to the orders appointing the petitioner. The first appointment order (Exhibit-16) is dated 30th March, 1989. It clearly states that the appointment is in place of backward category candidate and it is only for the year 1988-1989. It also states that the appointment is subject to the approval of the University. Thus, it is seen that the appointment of the petitioner was only for a period of one year i.e. temporary appointment which was against the reserved category post and the appointment was not on a post of clear vacancy and it was subject to 4 the approval of the University. All the subsequent appointment orders are similar in nature. The last appointment order (Exhibit-24) is dated 16th June, 1992. 6. It is common ground that in every field of service category, there are reservations for people belonging to certain reserved categories. In this connection, it would be necessary to refer to the Government Resolution bearing No. USC 1286/(1179)/Vishi-4, Education and Employment Department dated 29th September, 1986. This Resolution speaks about the reservation as provided for Backward Class candidates under Government Resolution bearing No. USG 5079/151912/Vishi-3 dated March 30, 1981 and then it states that under Resolution USG 4283/5054/Vishi-3 dated October 30, 1983, it is provided that in case candidate from reserved category is not found then the candidate from open category is to be appointed for a period of one year on temporary post. Resolution dated 29th September, 1986 provides that for three years in succession, if candidates from reserved category are not found, then candidates from open category be taken and the candidates who are already in service but belonging to open category, need not be called for interview again and again under the Government Resolution. This Resolution thus directs that the candidate from open category can be continued without being called for interview, if suitable candidate from reserved category is not found. 5 7. Reference may also be made to another Government Resolution bearing No. USG 1286/(1179)/Vishi-4 dated January 25, 1990 issued by Education and Employment Department. This resolution provides that instead of repeating an advertisement for three years and continuing the open category candidate for three years, this period is extended by two more years and is made five years. 8. It provides that even after five years, if a suitable reserved category candidate is not found, then steps can be taken to get the post dereserved. Obviously, in such case, the petitioner will have no right of being confirmed, except the right only to be continued in service and that too for five years and then option was left with the Management to get the post dereserved. 9. It may be stated that for the year 1992-93 the Selection Committee was got appointed by the Management and the Institution from the University. Advertisement was published for the post of lecturer in Electronics. Many applications were received and copy of the report is at Exhibit-31. That report shows that one Kakade was selected as a Scheduled Caste candidate as lecturer in Electronics. The appointment order in favour of this Mr.K.P.Kakade is at Exhibit-32. It is dated January 15, 1993. This appointment clearly puts to an end to the right of the petitioner of being continued in service as a lecturer in Electronics. His services therefore, on that account, were rightly 6 terminated by the Management and the petitioner cannot make any grievance thereof. 10.Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the Government Circular dated 30th September, 1989. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of this Circular, all persons who had been appointed from open category even in place of reserved category and who were in service upto 29th September, 1989, should not be removed from service. Hence, he submitted that in view of this Circular, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated. However, this Circular cannot be seen in isolation but it would be necessary to refer to two earlier Circulars issued by the Government dated 12th July, 1989 and 11th August, 1989. On reading these Circulars, it is quite evident that the Circulars dated 30th September, 1989 on which reliance is placed, pertains to employees of Class-I, Class-II, Class-III and Class-IV categories. This Circular dated 30th September, 1989 is by way of clarification and modification of earlier Circular dated 12th July, 1989. The earlier Circular clearly shows that it pertains only to the employees of Class-I, Class-II, Class-III and Class- IV categories. As far as teaching staff is concerned, there are no categories like Class-I, Class-II, Class-III and Class-IV. 11.If we refer to the Standard Code framed under the Act and which is applicable to non-teaching staff, we find that these four categories of 7 employees in Universities affiliated colleges and recognized Institutions but under the Statue which governs the terms and conditions of the teaching members of the staff, there are no such categories and classes. Moreover, the Circular dated 30th September, 1989 on which reliance has been placed, has been issued by General Administration Department and not by the Education Department, which would also go to show that it concerns to all the concerned employees of the Departments and not only of Education Department. As the the post of the petitioner cannot fall in Class-I, Class-II, Class-III and Class-IV, he cannot claim benefit of the said Circular. 12.As far as the other aspects are concerned, it is seen that the petitioner was appointed only on temporary basis and he was appointed against the reserved post as the candidate from reserved category was not available. Hence, he cannot claim any right to get any permanency in the said post as his right came to an end as soon as the candidate from reserved category became available. Thus, no fault can be found with the respondent for terminating the services of the petitioner as soon as the candidate from reserved category became available. The Tribunal has considered all these aspects in detail and thereafter, dismissed the appeal. 13.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is employed elsewhere hence, he is not pressing relief of reinstatement 8 nor is he seeking back wages but he is only seeking continuity of service. In respect of continuity of service, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated 7th July, 2009 in Writ Petition No.3673 of 1989 in the case of Vishwas Ramkrishna Patil Vs. The Dy.Director of Education, Gr.Bombay and others. On perusal of the said decision, I find that the facts therein and the facts in the present case being entirely different, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit from the said decision. 14.Looking to the facts of this case, no interference is called for. Writ petition is dismissed. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]