1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.: 2462 OF 2001 *** Ms. Anita D/o Rambhau Gedam, Aged: 39 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o Uttam Niwas, Opp. Collector Officer, Vazirabad, Nanded. ... PETITIONER Versus 1. Mahila Arthik Vikas Mahamandal (Through its Managing Director) Griha Nirman Bhawan (Mhada), Mezzanine Floor, Kalanagar, Bandara (E), Mumbai. 2. The Manager, Mahila Arthik Vikas Mahamandal, Griha Nirman Bhawan (Mhada), Mezzanine Floor, Kalanagar, Bandara (E), Mumbai. 3. The Project Coordinator, Mahila Arthik Vikas Mahamandal Kalamandir, Behind Somesh Colony, Dr. Kotalwad Building, Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS ... Mr. D. S. Mali, Advocate h/f Mr. S.B.Talekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. B. Ghatge, A.P.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. *** CORAM: S. B. DESHMUKH & K. U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED:- 14th SEPTEMBER, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Deshmukh, J.]: 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition appears to have been filed on 30th April, 2001. Respondent No.1 in this writ petition is a Corporation. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the authorities of the Respondent No.1 corporation. Counsel for the Petitioner points out prayers made by the Petitioner. Prayer clause (A) seeks quashment of the impugned order discontinuing/ terminating the services of the petitioner as Monitoring Officer in Respondent No.1 Corporation. Prayer made in clause (B) is a direction against Respondents to continue the present petitioner in service as Monitoring Officer. Prayer clause (C) is the interim relief sought by the present petitioner. 2. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that there was advertisement published in daily newspaper Loksatta somewhere on 26th May, 1994. In response to the same, petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Monitoring Officer. She was selected on the basis of her performance as well as educational qualification. It is 3 further contended that she was engaged as Assistant Monitoring Officer at Nanded somewhere on 4th January, 1995. Conditions of her appointment are mentioned in the order dated 5th January, 1995. According to the Petitioner, her services were continued from time to time on the terms and conditions dated 5th January, 1995. It is alleged by the petitioner that there was discord amongst the petitioner and District Project Officer one Mr. Naresh Ugemuge. This strained relations were for the reasons that the Petitioner had complained against the said person. Aedverse report to the the Petitioner, was submitted to the Managing Director of Respondent No.1 Corporation. Show cause notice cum warning was issued to the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, she was promoted as Monitoring Officer. She has been discontinued without holding any inquiry and without giving an opportunity of hearing. A statement is made by the Petitioner that except the present petitioner, all other persons are working in the Respondent No.1 corporation. 3. This petition was before this Court on 4 1st August, 2001. Rule has been issued with further direction for expeditious hearing. Mr. Ghatge, learnede counsel for Respondents pointed out affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Respondents. This affidavit is affirmed by one Ms. Lalita Narayanrao Tongse. It is averred by the affiant that the petitioner had worked with them on contract basis and for a specific period. Such period is given in para 1 of the affidavit which commences from 13th January, 1995 and ultimately ended on 12th January, 1998. These are three different period as detailed in para 1 of the affidavit. Statement is made in para 1 that last contract was with effect from 13th January, 1997 till 12th January, 1998 and was terminated on 11th August, 1997. We have seen further averments in para 2 of this affidavit. There, the period for which petitioner had worked as Monitoring Officer is detailed. Last detail of this period is from 11th September, 2000 to 31st March, 2001. In para 3, it has been averred that Respondent No.1 is a State level women development corporation and is a registered company. In the year 1994 5 initially it was implemented in four districts i.e. Chandrapur, Nanded, Yevatmal and Pune. Employees were appointed on contract basis for the period of eleven months. After eleven months contract period gets over. According to the policy prevailing employee was supposed to inform willingness and accordingly apply to the Respondent No.1. Considering the performance, it was the discretion of the management Respondent No.1 to issue fresh contract to the person concerned. For future period, it is stated that it was sole discretion with the Respondent and it was not legal obligation on the respondent. This para 3 ended with a statement that the services under the contract are not at all in continuation and every appointment is fresh appointment for a limited period. We have seen para 6 of the affidavit in reply. According to the affiant Petitioner has made misleading statement that all the staff on contract basis are continued. Said statement is categorically denied on behalf of the Respondents. In para 7, statement is made that person who was shouldered with the 6 responsibility of supervising the work of subordinates, had submitted report. Said report in the case on hand, was sent by one Mr. Naresh Ugemuge and is part of office procedure expected at his level. In para 8 it has been averred that the services of the petitioner were on contract basis and had stand terminated for the post of Assistant Monitoring Officer from 11th August, 1997. Petitioner was again employed by a new contract from 16th August, 1997 for the period of another eleven months. We have seen statements made in para 9 of the reply. In substance, the employment of the present petitioner, with the Respondent No.1 was contractual employment for a limited period. In our view, there is no order issued or passed by Respondent No.1 in the case of the present Petitioner. There was no question of such order. Petitioner is also seeking a writ of mandamus. We do not find any substance in the writ petition. The scheme concerned has been closed down somewhere in 2001. Statement to that effect is made in the affidavit. We accept the affidavit in reply. We see no 7 substance in this writ petition. Writ petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. [K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:14/09/2010. ans/2462 8 WRIT PETITION NO.: 2462 OF 2001 Date of decision: 14th SEPTEMBER, 2010. For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. B. DESHMUKH. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K. U. CHANDIWAL. . Whether Reporters of local papers ... Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? . To be referred to the Reporter or not? ... No . Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No the fair copy of the judgment? . Whether this case involves a substantial... No question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? . Whether it is to be circulated to the ... No Civil Judges? . Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices? [G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE