Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, three part-time lecturers appointed by SNDT Women's University, challenged the State Government's decision dated 27/11/2015 rejecting the university's proposal to convert their part-time posts into full-time posts. The petitioners were appointed as part-time lecturers in the subject of Family Management Resources between 1992 and 1995, and their services were confirmed by the university. Due to availability of full-time workload, the university requested the Joint Director of Higher Education for permission to convert the part-time posts to full-time and appoint the petitioners therein. The State rejected the proposal. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court examined whether the petitioners had any right to conversion and whether the State's decision was arbitrary. The court held that part-time lecturers have no vested right to conversion of their posts to full-time, as such conversion requires creation of sanctioned posts by the government. The university's request does not create any enforceable right. The court found that the State's decision was a policy decision based on administrative and financial considerations, and there was no arbitrariness or illegality. The petition was dismissed, and rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Conversion of Posts - Part-Time to Full-Time - No Vested Right - The petitioners, appointed as part-time lecturers, sought conversion of their posts to full-time. The court held that part-time lecturers have no vested right to conversion, as it requires creation of sanctioned full-time posts by the government. The university's request for conversion does not create any enforceable right. (Paras 2-14)
B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Judicial Review - Policy Decision - The court declined to interfere with the State's decision rejecting the proposal for conversion, as it was a policy decision based on administrative and financial considerations. The court found no arbitrariness or illegality in the rejection. (Paras 2-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, appointed as part-time lecturers, have a right to have their posts converted to full-time posts and whether the State's rejection of the university's proposal for such conversion is arbitrary or illegal.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Part-time lecturers have no vested right to conversion to full-time posts
- Conversion requires government sanction and creation of full-time posts
- University's request for conversion is not binding on the government
- Article 226 jurisdiction not to interfere with policy decisions
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 262
WRIT PETITION NO. 5089 OF 2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, M.S. Karnik
Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for petitioners, Ms. Rimi Jain I/b. Rui A. Rodrigues for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Mrs. R.M. Shinde, AGP for State
Mrs. Madhuri Sanjeev Ratnaparkhi & ors.
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging State's rejection of university's proposal to convert part-time lecturer posts to full-time.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the State's decision dated 27/11/2015 and direction to convert their part-time posts to full-time.
Filing Reason
The State rejected the university's proposal to convert part-time lecturer posts to full-time, affecting the petitioners' employment status.
Issues
Whether the petitioners have a right to conversion of their part-time posts to full-time posts.
Whether the State's rejection of the university's proposal is arbitrary or illegal.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they have been working as part-time lecturers for many years and there is workload for full-time lecturers, so conversion should be allowed.
Respondent State argued that conversion of posts is a policy decision and part-time lecturers have no vested right to conversion.
Ratio Decidendi
Part-time lecturers have no vested right to conversion of their posts to full-time. The decision to convert posts is a policy matter of the government, and courts under Article 226 will not interfere unless the decision is arbitrary or illegal. The State's rejection of the university's proposal was a valid policy decision.
Judgment Excerpts
Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the decision dated 27/11/2015 taken by the respondent No. 1 – Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, rejecting the proposal of the petitioners for converting the part time lecturer posts in the college to full time posts.
The facts of the case in brief are as under : The petitioner No.1 was appointed on temporary basis as a part time Lecturer in the subject of Family Management Resources on 6/7/1992.
As there was workload of full time Lecturers available, the respondent No.2 – SNDT Women's University, made a request to the respondent No.1 – Joint Director of Higher Education for permission to convert the part time Lecturer posts into full time Lecturer posts, with a request that the petitioners be appointed in the said posts.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 5089 of 2015 before the Bombay High Court challenging the State's decision dated 27/11/2015. The petition was reserved on 6th February 2019 and pronounced on 15th March 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994:
