Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Meena Patil, a lecturer in Mathematics at SNDT College of Arts & C.B. College of Commerce and Economics, was appointed on 5 July 1999 on a temporary basis on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. The appointment order clearly stated that the appointment was purely temporary and would continue only till the end of the academic year 1999-2000, and that the petitioner would have no claim on the post thereafter. Despite this, the petitioner continued to work on the same post for subsequent years as no candidate from the ST category was available, despite advertisements issued by the college for over seven years. The petitioner also faced a reduction in pay scale for not passing NET/SET, which was set aside by the School Tribunal in 2002. After 2004, no further advertisements were issued, but the petitioner continued to work on temporary appointment orders issued annually. In 2014, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to dereserve the post and regularize her services with consequential benefits. The court held that dereservation of a post is a policy decision of the government and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The petitioner accepted the appointment with full knowledge of its temporary nature and the reservation condition. Moreover, the petition was filed after 15 years of service, suffering from laches and delay. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the claim for regularization or dereservation.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reservation - Dereservation of Reserved Post - Appointment on Temporary Basis - Petitioner appointed on ST reserved post on temporary basis - No candidate from ST category available despite advertisements - Petitioner sought dereservation and regularization - Held that dereservation is a policy decision and cannot be claimed as a matter of right; petitioner continued on temporary basis with knowledge of conditions - No entitlement to regularization (Paras 1-13).
B) Service Law - Regularization - Temporary Appointment - Laches - Petitioner worked from 1999 but filed writ in 2014 - Delay of 15 years - Held that writ petition is liable to be dismissed on ground of laches and delay (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a lecturer appointed on a temporary basis on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category is entitled to dereservation of the post and regularization of services after working for several years.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Reservation policy
- Dereservation of reserved posts
- Regularization of temporary appointments
- Laches and delay
- Writ of mandamus
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (06) 96
Writ Petition No. 1211 of 2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari, Smt. Bharati H. Dangre
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Chetan Mali for Petitioner; Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent Nos.1,2 and 5; Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4
SNDT College of Arts & C.B. College of Commerce and Economics, Mumbai & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking mandamus for dereservation of post and regularization of services.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought issuance of writ of mandamus to dereserve the post to which she was appointed on probation from 05-07-1999 and seeking regularization of services subsequent to her confirmation and for release of consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on a post reserved for ST category and continued working for years; she sought dereservation and regularization.
Previous Decisions
School Tribunal set aside reduction in pay scale on 02-05-2002.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to dereservation of the post reserved for ST category?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization of services after working on temporary basis for several years?
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of laches and delay?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that she worked continuously since 1999 and no ST candidate was available, so the post should be dereserved and she should be regularized.
Respondents contended that the appointment was temporary and on a reserved post; petitioner accepted the conditions; dereservation is a policy matter; petition is barred by delay.
Ratio Decidendi
Dereservation of a reserved post is a policy decision of the government and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. A person appointed temporarily on a reserved post with knowledge of the conditions cannot claim regularization. Writ petitions seeking such relief after long delay are liable to be dismissed on ground of laches.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner a lecturer working with the respondent No.1 college is seeking issuance a writ of mandamus to dereserve the post to which she was appointed on probation from 05071999 and seeking regularization of the services subsequent to her confirmation and for release of consequential benefits.
The order of appointment which is placed on record reflects that the appointment was made purely on temporary basis on the post which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category.
It was also specified in the order, that the appointment was on a post reserved for the ST Category and the petitioner will have no claim on the said post on expiry of the period mentioned in the order.
Procedural History
Petitioner appointed on 05-07-1999 on temporary basis on ST reserved post. Reduction in pay scale set aside by School Tribunal on 02-05-2002. Petitioner continued working on temporary appointments. Filed Writ Petition No. 1211 of 2014 in 2014 seeking dereservation and regularization. Heard on 07-06-2018 and dismissed.
