10.wp.1517-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.1517 OF 2010 Dr.Prakash s/o. Marutirao Shere. ..Petitioner. Versus The Vice Chancellor, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik and 3 others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Hemant Surve, Advocate a/w. Mr.A.J. Kandarkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP a/w. Mr.S.N. Patil, AGP, for respondent No.4. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 25, 2010. P.C. 1. By this Petition, th e petitioner challenges the communication dated 1.6.2009 and the communication dated 16.9.2009. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed by the University as Chief Coordinator in the pay scale of Rs. 16400-450-22400 by order dated 16.1.2007 on purely temporary basis for a period of 11 months from the date of joining. It was stated that further extension can be given on yearly basis for a maximum period of five years. On 1.6.2009 the petitioner was informed by the University that the 10.wp.1517-10 2 petitioner is being appointed for the period from 9.3.2009 to 30.6.2009 on fixed pay of Rs.13,000/-. It was also stated that the University will be free to terminate the services if it is not happy with the performance of the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation to the Vice Chancellor against the order dated 1.6.2009. According to him as his appointment was made on 16.1.2007 in the pay-scale of Rs.16400-22400 he could not have been given extension on fixed scale. It appears that the order dated 1.6.2009 was modified by order dated 16.9.2009. By that order dated 16.9.2009, the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis for a period from 1.7.2009 to 30.9.2009 on fixed pay of Rs.16250/-. The submission of the petitioner is that as he was appointed by the order dated 16.1.2007 in the pay-scale of Rs.16400-22400/- he could not have been appointed by the University by subsequent order on fixed pay. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded. By order dated 16.1.2007 the petitioner was appointed for a period of 11 months and the University has discretion to grant extension upto a maximum period of five years. While granting extension, the University was free to impose any condition. And, therefore, the University granted extension, 10.wp.1517-10 3 but, according to the University the extension was subject to the condition that now the appointment is on fixed pay. If this condition was not acceptable to the petitioner, the petitioner was free not to avail of the extension. Same is the case with the order dated 16.9.2009. We do not see any prohibition in law in the University imposing condition that extension in service is subject to the condition that during the extended period the incumbent will get only fixed salary. In our opinion, the grievance of the petitioner has no substance. Petition is, therefore, rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)