Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra and others filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 5th February 2021 in Review Application No.2 of 2020, order dated 10th December 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No.329 of 2019, and judgment and order dated 18th February 2019 in Original Application No.434 of 2014, all passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. The respondent no.1, Smt. Manisha Chandrakant Gosavi, was initially appointed on contractual basis for 11 months as Craft Instructor at Yavatmal. She was later appointed for another 11 months on contractual basis at Industrial Training Institute (ITI), Dongri, District Thane by an appointment letter dated 2nd March 2010. Subsequently, she applied under the regular selection process and after qualifying, was appointed on regular basis as Craft Instructor (Electrician) at ITI, Vikramgad, Thane. The Tribunal had allowed her original application and subsequent applications, which the State challenged. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the Tribunal's orders.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Contractual Appointment - The respondent was initially appointed on contractual basis as Craft Instructor and later regularised after qualifying the regular selection process. The State challenged the Tribunal's orders allowing the original application and dismissing review. Held that the Tribunal's orders were justified and the petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred in allowing the respondent's application for regularisation and in dismissing the State's review application.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
Law Points
- Regularisation of contractual employees
- Selection process
- Service law
- Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (12) 55
WRIT PETITION NO. 3822 OF 2022
DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ, MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
Mr. S. K. Nair, Special Counsel a/w Mr. N. K. Rajpurohit, AGP a/w Ms. Reshma Kurle for the petitioners/State. Mr. Sumant Deshpande i/b Mr. Pritesh K. Bohade for respondent no.1. Mr. Vicky Nagrani a/w Ms. Kimaya Godbole, newly appointed Advocate for respondent no.1.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Smt. Manisha Chandrakant Gosavi & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal regarding regularisation of a contractual employee.
Remedy Sought
The State of Maharashtra sought to quash the Tribunal's orders allowing the respondent's application for regularisation and dismissing review.
Filing Reason
The State was aggrieved by the Tribunal's orders which allowed the respondent's original application and subsequent applications, leading to her regularisation.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal passed judgment and order dated 18th February 2019 in Original Application No.434 of 2014, order dated 10th December 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No.329 of 2019, and judgment and order dated 5th February 2021 in Review Application No.2 of 2020, all in favour of the respondent.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing the original application for regularisation.
Whether the Tribunal's dismissal of the review application was justified.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Tribunal's orders were erroneous and that the respondent's appointment was purely contractual and could not be regularised.
The respondent contended that she had qualified the regular selection process and was entitled to regularisation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no merit in the State's challenge and upheld the Tribunal's orders, implying that regularisation after qualifying a regular selection process is valid.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners, original respondent nos. 1 to 3 before the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereafter 'Tribunal' for short) by the present writ petition are challenging the legality and validity of judgment and order dated 5th February 2021 in Review Application No.2 to 2020, order dated 10th December 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No.329 of 2019 and judgment and order dated 18th February 2019 in Original Application no.434 of 2014, all passed by the Tribunal.
Procedural History
The respondent no.1 filed Original Application No.434 of 2014 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed on 18th February 2019. The State filed Miscellaneous Application No.329 of 2019, which was dismissed on 10th December 2019. The State then filed Review Application No.2 of 2020, which was dismissed on 5th February 2021. The State then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
