1 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.204 OF 2010 Dr. Majur Venugopal Shetty ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Shri R.B.Jaiswal for the Petitioner Shri V.S.Gokhale AGP for Respondent No.1 Shri R.A.Rodrigues for Respondent No.4 Coram: P.B.MAJMUDAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. 2nd July, 2010 P.C. 1. The original Petitioner of this Petition was an employee of the Respondent No.1 college. The Original Petitioner namely Dr. Majur Venugopal Shetty was appointed as a Professor on ad-hoc basis on year to year basis, till regular selected candidate through Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) was available. Since no regular appointment was made through MPSC, the original Petitioner continued in service on ad-hoc basis from time to time. The original Petitioner thereafter, approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal with a prayer that his services should be 2 regularized and the institution should not terminate his services. The Tribunal by its order dated 21-7-2004 partly allowed the said application by directing the Respondent No.1 college not to replace the said Petitioner by another ad-hoc employee. The Tribunal also directed that the case of the Petitioner be considered for age relaxation as and when the regular selection process takes place. By way of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed that the Respondents may be directed to regularize his appointment as he could not have been continue on ad-hoc basis for such a long time. The Petitioner is now seeking the reliefs, which reliefs have been rejected by the Tribunal. 2. During the pendency of this Petition, the Original Petitioner has died. Since the Petitioner was unmarried and was a bachelor, tshe Civil Application is filed by his three sisters. This Court has allowed the Civil application and that is how the heirs of the Petitioner are brought on record who are the sisters of the original Petitioner. 3 3. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at length. In our view, the prayer made by the original Petitioner for regularisation of his service does not survive in view of the death of the Petitioner and in any event cannot be considered at the instance of the heirs of the Petitioner who are his sisters, who are all married sisters as pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Apart from the aforesaid aspect, even on merits, we do not find any substance regarding the prayer for regularisation. The original Petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis till the regular selected candidate through MPSC was available. It is not in dispute, that the post in question was required to be filled in through a candidate selected through the MPSC. The Respondents had taken a liberal view towards the Petitioner by continuing him from time to time till regular selected candidate was available. 4. The Petitioner never tried to raise the issue by asking the institution to advertise the post, instead continued to get benefit by way of ad-hoc appointment. The Petitioner also did not challenge the 4 Judgment of the Tribunal which is dated 21-7-2004. In our view the Petitioners did not have any legal right to continue in the post except as and by way of ad-hoc arrangement. Apart from the aforesaid aspect, this Petition cannot be allowed to be continued by the heirs who are the married sisters of the Petitioner only for the purpose of getting monetary benefits. The Petition, in our view, is thoroughly misconceived as the heirs of the Petitioner who have been joined cannot seek the prayer of regularisation of the service of the original Petitioner. Even on merits such prayer could not have been granted to the Petitioner as he has no legal right to continue in the said post. 6. In view of what is stated above, the Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)