1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.821 OF 2009 Mrs.Minakshi Kashinathrao Padole .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Shri B.R.Kaware, Advocate for petitioner Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent No.1-State Shri P.S.Pawar, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 26th JUNE 2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner had initially prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the order of termination dated 30.12.2008 issued by the respondent No.3 and also prayed for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. The petitioner had also prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 8.1.2009 which was issued by the respondents inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Programme Officer i.e the post held by the petitioner prior to her termination. Petition came to be amended and by amended prayer clause (b1), the petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside the appointment order issued in favour of respndent No.4 and for 2 directing the respndents to reinstate the petitioner. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus. An advertisement came to be issued on 8.12.1995 inviting applications for the post of Media in charge for the office of Maharashtra Prathamik Shikshan Parishad. The petitioner accordingly applied for the said post and came to be appointed on the said post initially for a period if six months. The appointment order of the petitioner clearly states that the appointment was on temporary basis. Thereafter, the petitioner was continued and the further appointment order clearly indicates that the appointment was on contractual basis for a limited period and in the event the work of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, she would not be considered for further employment. The contractual appointment of the petitioner was thereafter continued from time to time and it was made clear in all the appointment orders/continuation orders that the aforesaid posts were limited for the concerned project only and after the completion of the said project if the services were not found necessary the posts would be abolished. Thereafter it appears that the said project was completed and accordingly a fresh advertisement came to be issued inviting applications for a project i.e Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. The qualifications which were prescribed were Graduate in any faculty plus B.Ed. And three years’ teaching experience. The affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondents states that the petitioner came to be appointed 3 in that project but had not furnished the requisite documents and, therefore, several communications came to be addressed which are referred to in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply. It appears that pursuant to the show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted documents i.e the mark-list of Master of Mass Communication and Journalism, i.e post graduate degree in Journalism and other documents including one document showing that she has experience of teaching of two years. The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondents clearly states that the certificate of the petitioner in respect of the teaching experience was referred to the College which had issued the said certificate. Reply of the I/c Principal is very interesting which we reproduce below : “ On the subject we have to inform you that, the then Principal College of Journalism & Mass Communication, may have asked orally Ms. Minakshee Padole to engage classes for which there is no office record available of her attendance and record of emoluments paid for that period.” Since the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification, the respondents issued the order which is impugned in the present petition. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel in respect of various grounds and contentions which are urged before us. It is the contention of the 4 learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted the documents which were sought for by the respondents and in the light of the fact that prior approval had been granted to the appointment of the petitioner, the respondents were estopped from terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications. Shri Pawar, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 has urged before us that the appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis i.e the initial appointment and so was the subsequent appointment and since it was on contractual basis, the petitioner has no legally enforceable right to claim reinstatement. Further, the order impugned in the present petition clearly states that since the petitioner had not possessed the requisite qualifications and the work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, therefore, the services of the petitioner had been terminated. It is also urged before us that the petitioner does not possess requisite three years’ experience and the experience certificate which was produced by the petitioner is not a genuine certificate. 4. The appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis. The earlier appointment as well as the subsequent appointment was on contractual basis. The letters which had been issued from time to time by the respondents clearly disclose that the respondents had called upon the petitioner to produce the documents. The qualification which is prescribed for a subsequent appointment apart from the degree in any 5 faculty plus B.Ed was that the candidate should possess teaching experience of three years. The certificate which was produced by the petitioner was in respect of teaching experience of two years. When the said certificate was referred to the College, the reply of the in charge Principal was that there was no record to indicate that the petitioner had worked in the said college and was paid any emoluments. The petitioner, therefore, apart from the fact that she does not possess teaching experience of three years also could not fortify her contention that she has teaching experience of three years. Moreover, work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory. All the averments in affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.3 are not controverted by the petitioner by filing affidavit-in-rejoinder. 5. After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, according to us there is no merit in the matter and the same is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) vvr/821.09wp