Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Neeta Sanjeev Dighe, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 6th August 2011 passed by the State of Maharashtra (respondent No.1) rejecting the proposal for de-reservation of the post of Lecturer in Botany at B.N.N. College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Bhiwandi, where she was appointed. The petitioner also sought a declaration that her service as Lecturer be confirmed from the date of her initial appointment. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer on a temporary basis from 29th November 1990 to 20th April 1991 by respondent No.5 (the management) at respondent No.6 College. The post was a reserved post for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. Since 1985, the post was advertised every year for reserved candidates, but no suitable candidate was found. The petitioner, who belonged to the open category, was appointed temporarily. Subsequently, the management proposed de-reservation of the post to the State Government, which was rejected on 6th August 2011 on the ground that the conditions under the Government Resolution dated 30th April 1997 were not fulfilled. The petitioner argued that she had been working continuously and that the rejection was arbitrary. The respondents, including the State and the University, contended that the appointment was temporary and on a reserved post, and without proper de-reservation, the petitioner could not claim confirmation. The Court analyzed the Government Resolution and found that the conditions for de-reservation, such as advertising the post for a specified period and obtaining prior approval, were not complied with. The Court held that the rejection of the de-reservation proposal was valid and that the petitioner's appointment being on a reserved post without de-reservation did not entitle her to confirmation. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - De-reservation of Reserved Posts - Conditions for De-reservation - Government Resolution dated 30th April 1997 - The petitioner was appointed on a reserved post without following the procedure for de-reservation. The State Government rejected the de-reservation proposal as the conditions under the Government Resolution were not fulfilled. The Court held that the rejection was valid and the petitioner cannot claim confirmation without proper de-reservation. (Paras 1-20) B) Service Law - Appointment on Reserved Post - Temporary Appointment - The petitioner was appointed temporarily on a reserved post. The post was advertised for reserved candidates but no suitable candidate was found. The Court held that the appointment was temporary and did not confer any right to confirmation. (Paras 2-10) C) Service Law - Confirmation of Service - Requirement of Valid Appointment - The petitioner sought confirmation of service from the date of initial appointment. The Court held that confirmation cannot be granted as the appointment was on a reserved post without de-reservation and the petitioner did not belong to the reserved category. (Paras 15-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to confirmation of her service as a Lecturer on a reserved post and whether the rejection of the de-reservation proposal by the State Government was valid.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order dated 6th August 2011 rejecting the de-reservation proposal is upheld. The petitioner is not entitled to confirmation of service.
Law Points
- De-reservation of reserved posts
- Appointment on reserved post
- Confirmation of service
- Government Resolution dated 30th April 1997
- Conditions for de-reservation
- Compliance with statutory requirements
