1 WP 907,10907.2010 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 907 OF 2010 Ravindra S/o Madhukar Lohar Age : 35 Yrs.,(Minor ) Occ.: NIL, R/o : Shivajinagar, New HUDCO Colony, Chakangad No. DX-12, Jalgaon Dist. : Jalgaon. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Department of Health, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director of Health Sent George Hospital Compound, Arogya Bhavan Mumbai. 3. The Additional Director of Health, Pune Wishrantwadi, Yeroda, Pune. 4. The District Civil Surgeon Civil Hospital, Jalgaon, President of Selection Committee Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. 5. The Member Secretary As well as Administrative Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. 6. Pradip S/o Subhash Kale 2 WP 907,10907.2010 - ( J ) Age : 22 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o : At present Post Hartala, Tq. Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon. 7. Purushottam S/o Laxman Sapkale Age : 26 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o : At Post Kadgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. 8. Manisha D/o Shivram Raysing Age : 26 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o : At Navrang, Colony Plot No. 8, Near Hari Vitthal Nagar, Bus Stop Post Pimprala, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. .... RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.G.Tlhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B.Khandare, Govt. Pleader for State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10907 OF 2010 Ravindra S/o Madhukar Lohar Age : 36 Yrs.,(Minor ) Occ.: NIL, R/o : Shivajinagar, New HUDCO Colony, Chakangad No. DX-12, Jalgaon Dist. : Jalgaon. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Department of Health, 3 WP 907,10907.2010 - ( J ) Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Deputy Director of Health Services, Nashik Circle, Nashik. 3. The Civil Surgeon Civil Hospital, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon. .... RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.G.Tlhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B.Khandare, Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. V.B.Patil, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 6 to 8. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 14/01/2011 JUDGMENT : [ PER - S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties. 2. Both the Writ Petitions involve common question of facts, as such are decided together. 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 907 of 2010 impugns the order dated 4/9/2009 passed in Original Application No. 382 of 2008, whereas the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10907 of 2010 impugns the Order dated 27/10/2010 passed in Original Application No. 165 of 2010, so also the Order dated 26/11/2009 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, 4 WP 907,10907.2010 - ( J ) Aurangabad Bench [ For short, ‘ the Tribunal ’ ] in Misc. Application No. 283 of 2009. 4. The petitioner contends that he was appointed on 16/10/1998 for the period of 29 days as Wardboy i.e. Class IV employee in the Civil Hospital, Jalgaon. The services of the petitioner were continued on the vacant post up to 29/11/1999. Thereafter the services of the petitioner were discontinued. According to him, as nobody was appointed on the said vacant post, the petitioner had filed Original Application No. 733 of 2000 before the Tribunal. The same was disposed of by giving direction that the petitioner should be considered for appointment on Class IV post during leave vacancy or regular vacancy as and when arises. The petitioner kept on making representations, but he was not given appointment. In Original Application No. 382 of 2008 filed by present respondent nos. 6 to 8, the Tribunal had passed order that the selection process is not vitiated and had allowed the Selection Committee to operate wait list, if the seven ( 7 ) candidates stand disqualified after verification regarding their mark lists. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the only Badli worker and he was first on the seniority list, still he was not considered. It is absolutely erroneous on the part of the authorities not to consider the claim of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the order of the Tribunal in Original Application No. 282 of 2009 is contrary to the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal. The earlier order of the Tribunal is that “ No appointment of freshers ( fresh candidates ) shall hereafter be made either in the leave/casual vacancies or in the normal vacancies on the Regular Temporary Establishment unless and until the 5 WP 907,10907.2010 - ( J ) seniority list of the Badlis referred to above is exhausted ” . As such, the impugned order is contrary to the legal position. 5. The learned Govt. Pleader submitted that the said order itself would not be in force in view of the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the back door entry can not be allowed as observed in the case of Umadevi. The learned counsel further submits that the select list is finalized. 6. It is a fact that the petitioner worked as an adhoc employee only for the period of about one ( 1 ) year. He was not appointed through selection process. In such circumstances, he does not get any right to the said post. It has been decided by the Apex Court in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others V/s Umadevi (3) & Others reported in ( 2006 ) 4 Supreme Court Cases - 1 that the appointment to the regular post has to be made by selection process. In light of the same, the petitioner can not claim the vested right, of being appointed only on the count that he had worked as adhoc Badli worker for one ( 1 ) year that too prior to ten ( 10 ) years. 7. It has also been observed by the Tribunal in its Order passed in Original Application No. 165 of 2010 that in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi, the directions given by the Tribunal on 8/2/2005 while deciding the Original Application No. 192 of 2003 are no longer valid. More over, the Tribunal has also held that the marks of the applicant were much lower than the cut off marks. The petitioner could not be given appointment 6 WP 907,10907.2010 - ( J ) based on earlier directions about the Badli nor he could be given appointment as per latest recruitment due to inadequate marks. 8. We see no error in the orders passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner has no case on merits as he has no vested right to claim appointment to the said post. 9. In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] knp/WP 907,10907.2010