1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 212 OF 1994. Subhash S/o Mansaram Hiwale Age : 22 Yrs., Occ. Field Assistant Legal Metrology Department, Osmanabad, R/o : Jalki (Vasai), Post : Halda, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Osmanabad. .... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Member Secretary regional Secondary Services, Selection Board, Saphalya Bldg., Padampura, Aurangabad. 3. Controller of Legal Metrology Maharashtra State, Bombay, having its office at Free Press Journal Road, Bombay. 4. The Dy. Controller, Legal Metrology, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 5. Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, Latur, Division, Latur. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.D.Rakh, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. 2 CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 15/06/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER - B.R.GAVAI, J. ] 1. By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the termination order dated 24/12/1993 and also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by giving permanency benefits. 2. The petitioner came to be appointed as Field Assistant in Legal Metrology Department, Aurangabad vide order dated 15/12/1992. The said appointment was purely on temporary basis. Vide order dated 24/6/1993, the services of the petitioner came to be continued again on temporary basis. The said continuation was subject to the selection of the petitioner by the Regional Selection Board. The petitioner's services were terminated vide order dated 24/12/1993. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad. The Original Application No. 593 of 1993 filed by the petitioner was disposed of. Hence, the present petition. 3. This Court vide an interim order dated 9/8/1994 directed the respondents to continue the petitioner in service. 4. Mr. S.R.Barlinge, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that in view of the Govt. Resolution dated 29/4/1999 and 3 20/11/2003, the petitioner's services are liable to be regularized. 5. Learned Assistant Govt. Pleader submits that since the petitioner has not been selected by the Regional Selection Board, his services were rightly terminated and no interference is called for. 6. The petitioner has been in service right from 15/12/1992. He was further continued vide order 24/6/1993. Thereafter, he was terminated from service. He was again appointed vide order dated 7/9/1994 in view of the interim order passed by this Court. The appointment of the petitioner was on purely temporary basis. However, since the petitioner has been continuously in service from 7/9/1994, we find that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, on the basis of equity, he should be continued in service. The petitioner is in continuous service for more than 16 years, that too only on account of interim orders passed by this Court. Non granting relief to the petitioner at this stage would cause grave injustice. In all probabilities, the petitioner would now be age barred and it will be difficult for him to obtain any job at this stage. It is further to be noted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is qualified for the post to which he was appointed. It is further pertinent to note that since the petitioner is in service for the period of 16 years, we had called the report of his superiors regarding his performance. The affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of Dy. Controller of Legal Metrology. Along with affidavit, details regarding his Confidential Report have been given. It would reveal from the said report that his performance is B+ ( positively good ) and A (excellent). While granting equitable relief, we are of the considered view that the performance of the petitioner needs to 4 be taken into consideration. 7. In that view of the matter, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and further holding that this should not be treated as precedence, we are inclined to allow the petition by directing the respondents that petitioner's services should be regularized. However, we are inclined to grant regularization of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 7/9/1994 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was again appointed in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 212.94