Bombay High Court judgment of 14 Oct 2026
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Case number
- HCBM010207592022_1_2026-10-14
- Date of judgment
- 14 October 2026
- Petitioner / Appellant
- Respondent
- CNR
- HCBM010207592022
- Result
- Disposed
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5395 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9909 OF 2022 1. Manisha Santosh Gaikwad Age: 30 year Occ: Service R/at Buddha Nagar, Azad Nagar Nr. BK No. 653, Ulhasnagar-2 Thane 2. Madhuri Sawant Age: 30 year Occ: Service R/at. Flat No. 509, Sky hill Bldg., Near New Panvel Highway 3. Mrunali Chandekar Age: 32 year Occ: Service R/at Samarth Nagar, Nr. Govt. Hospital, At Post Vasind Tal. Shapur Dist Thane 4. Sangeeta Dalvi Age: 28 years Occ: Service R/at Tanaji Mhatre Chawl No. 6, Room No., 2 Ganesh Mandir Road Dativali Diva 5. Samishka Palshetkar Age: 32 year Occ: Service 101, Shri Hari Apt Kolegaon Nr. Aai Ekveera Dombivali (E)
6. Manisha Hajare
Age: 22 year Occ: Service
R/at Daksh Apt 403 Shiv Shakti
Colony Chawl Ulhasnagar
7. Rupali Ubale
Age: 21 year Occ: Service
R/at 407, Savarkar Nagar,
Behind Ganpati Mandir Manmad Nashik
8. Aarti Buradkar
Age: 32 year Occ: Service
Swami Samrth Apt, Ground Floor
Page 1 of 33
Prasad
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT
Digitally signed by
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING RAJPUT
Date: 2026.10.14
18:20:18 +0530
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
R. No. 4 Jimmi Baug Kappewad
Kalyan (E)
9. Usha Lone
Age: 30 year Occ: Service
R/at AT. Take Deogaon Powawi harsh
Tal Trymbakeshwar Nashik
10. Pratikash Jadhav
Age: 22 year Occ: Service
R/at Kalayn Murbad Road,
Rayate, Kalyan
1 1. Vanita Rathod
Age: 21 year Occ: Service
R/at New Hanuman Mandir New
Hanuman Colony Aurangabad
12. Deepali Zirva
Age: 21 year Occ: Service
A-01/304 Jay Vinaya Park Samukh Soc. Road, Dalvi Wada Manda Titwala (E)
13. Yogita Patil
Age: 20 year Occ: Service
R/at, Own House Kalayn Shill Road
Nr. Maruti School, Khidkaligaon Kalyan
14. Manisha Avhad
Age: 22 year Occ: Service
R. No. 12, Om Sita Niwas,
Durgamata Mandir Road,
Kolsewadi Kalyan
15. Supriya Chavan
Age: 20 year Occ: Service
R/at 205/C Navgaondevi Kripa
Soc. Retibhandar Road,
Devicha ada Dombivali (E)
16. Nagis Mokashi
Age: 28 year Occ: Service
R/at 91 Shree Malang Road,
Nr. Namdev Pandey Chawl,
Chakki Naka Kalyan (E)
Page 2 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
17. Shweta Mali
Age: 28 year Occ: Service
R/at, B-6/R. No. 4, Shree Ekdant Apt,
Bhagirati Nagar,
Adharwadi Jail Kalyan (W)
18. Pragati Hingale
Age: 32 year Occ: Service
Bhaiya Sheb Ambedkar
Nagar, O.T. Section No. 2,
Near Budha Vihar Kemari
19. Sheela Palve
Age: 28 year Occ: Service
R/at, 303 Krushna Apt,
Dwarka Nagori, Santosh Nagar
Poona Link Road, Tisgaon Naka
Kalyan (E)
20. Nikita Kalokhe
Age: 22 year Occ: Service
4, Vir Niwas Karpewadi New
Jimmibaugh Lokgram Road,
Opp. Desai Building,
Kalayn (E)
21. Vandana Wakode
Age: 35 year Occ: Service
R/at Premji Nagar Mothi Umari Akola
Near Kaly furniture,
Taluka Akola
22. Anita Hemant Gondake
Age: 22 year Occ: Service
R/at Palsande Tal. Mokada
Post Khoch Palghar
23. Anita B. Shilkande
Age: 38 year Occ: Service
R/at Flat No. 404 Tisai Darshan
Vijay Nagar Tisgaon,
Kalyan (E)
24. Sangita Thorat
Age: 23 year Occ: Service
R/at Tanaji mhatre Chwal No. 6
Page 3 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
25. Manasvi Mahendra Kadam
Age: 22 year Occ: Service
R/at A-103 Jai Vaushnavi Apt,
Badlapur Ambernath Road,
Near TalathiOffice Belvali
Badlapur (W)
26. Mamta Bhoir
Age: 28 year Occ: Service
AT Gorad Vajreshwari
27. Akshada Pandav
Age: 23 year Occ: Service
R/at Kalyan Thane
28. Maya Mahale
Age: 25 year Occ: Service
R/at Kalyan Thane
29. Pallavi Awale
Age: 22 year Occ: Service
R. No. 2 N Tower Chandresh Oasis
Lodha Heaven Nilaje Gaon,
Kalayn Shil Road, Katai
30. Archana Raghunath Gode
Age: 22 year Occ: Service
Padali Deshmukh Post Mukane
Tal. Igatpuri Nashik
31. Yogita Ramchandra Burange
Age: 21 year Occ: Service
R/at Vighhart Apt. Ambivali
Kalayn (W)
32. Pragati Bhore
Age: 32 year Occ: Service
R/at 304 Sai Sudhi Tower Laxmi
Nagar, Ghatkopar (E)
33. Aarti Buge
Age: 32 year Occ: Service
R/at Ganraj Colony, Room No. 05
Chawl No. 1, Ashlepada Ganesh Mandir,
Ulhasnagar
Page 4 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
34. Priya Bhore
Age: 23 year Occ: Service
R/at Wlochintaman Alode Moho
B. K Wada Thane
35. Chaitali Dandekar
Age: 28 year Occ: Service
R/at Patil Nagar, Opp Shanmangal Karyalay, Shri. Siddhi Apt Washind (E)
36. Damini Are
Age: 23 year Occ: Service
R/at At. Belwad Tai Shahapur
Dist Thane Post Vaitarna
37. Komal Bajabhau Dighe
Age: 23 year Occ: Service
R/at Bapgaon Bhivandi ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation, Through its Municipal Commissioner, Having office at Shankar Rao Chowk, Kalyan (W), Dist. Thane.
2. Municipal Commissioner,
Having office at
Shankar Rao Chowk, Kalyan (W),
Dist. Thane
3. Assistant Commissioner,
General Administration Department,
Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation,
Having office at
Shankar Rao Chowk, Kalyan (W),
Dist. Thane
4. Chief Medical Officer,
Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation
Shankar Rao Chowk, Kalyan (W),
Dist. Thane
Page 5 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
5. State of Maharashtra,
(Through its Principal Secretary,
Having office at
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032). ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8812 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9883 OF 2022 1. Sagar Ramchandra Pawar Age: 22 Year, Occ: Ward Boy, R/At, Room 7 Ashatavinyak Buld, Near Tilak Collage, Azdegaon Dombivali (E), District- Thane 2. Rushikesh Madhukar Avhad Age: 26year, Occ: Ward Boy, R/At B/206, Salubai Sankul, Nadivali Adivali, Kalayn (E), District- Thane 3. Ganesh Baburao Kamble Age: 30 Year, Occ: Ward Boy, R/At, Pisawaligaon, Kalayn (E)
4. Rajnandan Maruti Pandagale
Age: 22 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At 203, Kisan Joshi Chowl,
Azdegaon, Dombivali (E), Thane
5. Rishikesh Mahavir Koturkar
Age: 23 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At Samarth Niwad, Hanuman Nagar
Kachuregaon, Kalyan (E)
6. Umesh Bhasjar Ugale
Age: 38 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At Room No. 402, Khadpada
Kalyan (W)
7. Pritam Prabhakar Redekar
Age: 28 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At Sai Ashirwad Apt,
B/302, Chinchpada Kalyan (E)
Page 6 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
8. Swapnil Ramdas Jagtap
Age: 38 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At Bhimnagar, Sarode Hospital
Near Water Tank Ghatkopar (E)
9. Ankush Gulabrao Padol
Age: 26 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At Mangal Radhu Nagar,
Kalyan (E)
10. Vicky Shankar Ujjainkar
Age: 31 Year, Occ: Ward Boy,
R/At Khadegolavali, Vitthal Wadi,
Kalyan (E)
1 1. Suraj Nandkumar Niwate
Age: 23 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At B/105, Jay Ganesh Vastu Kopargaon
Near Ridhi Sidhi Complex
12. Rajesh Sakharam Niwate
Age: 25 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At Room No. 4, Shree Swami Samarth CHS
Kopargaon, Dombivali (E)
13. Jayesh Maruti Gode
Age: 24 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At Room No. 2 Kalwa (E)
14. Omkar Anil Panchal
Age: Adult, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At 106, Pimpleshwar Darshan,
Manpada Road, Dombivli (W)
15. Prasad Baliram Krupane
Age: 22 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At C 202 Nav Pancharatna Soc,
New Ayre Road, Rajaji Path,
Near Sai Baba Temple, Dombivli (E)
16. Bhaskar Nanda Chavan
Age: 30 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/At Nashik
17. Suraj Paradeshi
Age: Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At Kalyan (W), Thane
Page 7 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
18. Krishnasamy V.
Age: 36 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At Dwarka Smriti Building, Room No 21,
3Floor, Mp Road, Bhoirwadi,
Dombivali West. PIN-421202
19. Nilesh Jagtap
Age: 33 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At Room No. 2 Shashtri Nagar Dombivali (W)
20. Avinash Lenekar
Age: 21 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Aurangabad
21. Manoj Bhogle
Age: 25 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Kalyan (E) Thane
22. Jalindar Kokatare
Age: 28 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at New Ayre Road Samtanagar,
Kopar Station Road Ayre Gaon, Dombivli (E)
23. Manohar Waghmare
Age: 35 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Tel- Surgana Dist-Nashik
24. Kailas Avhad
Age: 30 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At A/P Dapur, Tel-Sinnar Dist- Nashik
25. Siddhesh Kamble
Age: 20 Year, Occ: Ward Boy,
R/at Dist Palghar
26. Sagar Pardeshi
Age: 28 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at C-70, Mantri Chandak Nagar,
Bhavani Peth, Solapur
27. Manisha Gaikwad
Age: 30 Year, Occ: Ward Girl
R/at Ulshanagar 2
28. Santosh Ramnath Bade
Age: 21 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
Page 8 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
R/at At. Jirewadi Post. Kordgoan Tal. Pathardi Dist .Ahmadnagar 29. Nikita Rathod Age: 24 Year, Occ: Ward Girl R/at Kalyan (E), Thane 30. Ashwini Kamble Age: 25 Year, Occ: Ward Girl R/At Room No. 203 Kamal Residency Sanjay Nagar, Sagaon Dombivali (E)
31. Sandeep Dere
Age: Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Kalyan (W) Thane
32. Rajeshri Ufade
Age: Year, Occ: Ward Girl
R/at Kalyan (W), Thane
33. Vikram Kadam
Age: 37 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/At Mangal Ragho Nagar Kalyan East
34. Anil Laxman Dhulap
Age: 35 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Room No 7 Shree Ganesh Krupa
Chs Aayregav Dombivali
35. Prakash Suresh Koli
Age: 29 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at 702/D/32 Jay Bharat Sosayati,
Sangharsh Nagar,
Chandivali Andheri (East)
36. Balaram Bhalerao
Age: 42 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Durga Devi Pada,
Shiv Mandir Road, Ambarnath (E)
37. Pravin Bhojane
Age: 41 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Royal Park, Nandivali,
Dombivali East.
Page 9 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
38. Vinayak Niwate
Age: 24 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Dombivali (E)
39. Dwarkesh Ucche
Age: 22 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Azdegaon Dombivali (E)
40. Neha Mevati
Age: 21 Year, Occ: Ward Girl
R/ At Bail Bazzar Kalyan (W)
41. Paresh Prabhakar More
Age: 33year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Kalyan (E), Thane
42. Mahendra Bhalchandra Devare
Age: 34 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Room No. 21, Chawl No. 06, Mahendra
Kadu Chawl, Aashele Pada,
Ulhasnagar-04, Thane 421004
43. Rupesh Rajendra Kakde
Age: 21 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Samrat Harshwardhan Nagar
Near MIDC Water Tank Ulhasnagar 1
44. Swapnil S. Jarare
Age: 27 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Pisvali, Kalyan East
45. Mahesh Rohidas Shinde
Age: 32 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Aminabai Chawal Hanuman Mandir
Room 3 Kajutekdi Kondaji Baba
Dere Marg Ghatkopar West
46. Ashish R. Khandekar
Age: 27 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Kalyan (E) Thane
47. Yogesh H. Baliram
Age: 28 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Kalyan (E) Thane
48. Ravindara Dhanvale
Age: 28 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
Page 10 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
R/at Kalyan (W) Thane
49. Abhishek Mhaske
Age: Year, Occ: Ward Boy
50. Kiran Gaikar
Age: 23 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Kalyan (E) Thane
51. Mangesh Magar
Age: 27 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
At-Ghotsai, Post - Titwala,
Tal - Kalyan, Dist - Thane - 421605
52. Chhaya Samadhan Ufade
Age: 30 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Kdmc Qatar, Near Birla
College Road, Kalyan West
53. Ganesh Dagadu Paradhi
Age: 26 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Asangaon
54. Ravindra Ramesh Shelar
Age: 23 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
At.Titwala Tal. Kalyan Dist. Thane
55. Dhanajay Prakash Chavan
Age: 22 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Siddhesh Colony, Chawl.B,
Room.No.2 Mharalgaon Po. Varap, Kalyan
56. Farooq Mohidin Shaikh
Age: 26 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Titwala
57. Ashish Arvind Dhale
Age: 25 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Room No.76, Second Floor,
Police Constabulary Near Electric
House, Colaba, Mumbai 400001
58. Kalpesh Patil
Age: 25 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Dombivali (E)
Page 1 1 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
59. Amol Shashikant Waghmode
Age: 24 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Kalyan (E) Thane
60. Shweta Ajay Jadhav
Age: 21 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Room No. 105 Royal Residency,
Phase I Jay Malhar Nagar,
Bapgaon Deveung 421302
61. Ajay Khope
Age: 22 Year; Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Kalyan (E)Thane
62. Jayesh Waghmode
Age: 24 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Kalyan (E)
63. Kunal Subhash Pawar
Age: 23 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
At - Ghotsai, Post- Titwala,
Tal-Kalyan, Dist-Thane
64. Ankush Prakash Andhale
Age: 32 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Jatharpeth Gupthe Marg Akola
65. Surekha Sagar Kadam
Age: 34 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Lower Parel, Mumbai
66. Qayyum Ayyub Khan
Age: 21 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Shakur Seth Chawl Room No 1
Govind Wadi Retibander Kalyan
67. Jayesh Magar
Age: 23 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
At-Ghotsai Post-Titwala Tel-Kalyan Dist -Thane 68. Akshay Brijlal Agrwal Age: 24 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Sai Nirvana Shahad Murbad Road Near Balaji Lojing Kalyan West 69. Mayur Bhaskar Pawar Page 12 of 33 Prasad 903-WP-5395-2022.DOC Age: 28 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Vinayaka Colony Plot No 45 Bhusawal Dist Jalgaon 425201 70. Dinesh S. Jadhav Age: 38 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at 1/3 Mahamahind Society Near Maharashtra Nagar Adharwadi Kalyan West 71. Raju Tulshiram Kadam Age: 46 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Old Ambernath Gaon Durga Pada Near Akash Kirana Store, Ambernath 72. Suresh Madhukar Sarwade Age: 40 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Mmrda Complex Bldg No. K7 Room No 105 Kanjur Marg West 73. Gudiya Harilal Gupta Age: 40 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at M/34 Neharu Nagar Uttan Road Radhabhai Chawl Bhyander West 74. Vikas Ramla Shivade Age: 35 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Vedant Millennia H Wing 402, Titwala E 75. Sanjay L. Mhaskar Age: 35 Year, Occ: Ward Boy At-Mhohili, Post-Aghai, Tel-Shahapur, Dist-Thane, Maharashtra, 421301 76. Dhanajay R. Bhangare Age: 25 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Kalyan Thane 77. Krushna Mathardev Avhad Age: 23 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Ravikiran Sch Room 204 Near Mangal Ragho Tissgon Naka Kalayn (E)
78. Sumedh Manakar
Age: 25 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Kalyan Thane
Page 13 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
79. Dnyaneshwar Jadhav
Age: 29 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Gokul Awas Society C Wing 102 Room No Nr Tv Tower Ambedkar Chowk Badlapur E 80. Prashant Sudhakar Baviskar Age: 29 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Mahavir Dham A Wing 302 Mohana Road B Ward KDMC Off Vadavali Kalyan West 421301 81. Sagar Ashok Dhamale Age: 21 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Kalyan East 82. Nikhil Sawale Age: 25 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Kalyan 83. Santosh Sahadev Khedkar Age: 31 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Dr.Ambedka Nagar.
Chopra Court. Near Dr Bhatija
Clinic Ulhasnagar.-3
84. Ashish Siddhartha Kamble
Age: 27 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at NRC Collany, Rs7243, Mohane, Ambivali 85. Nitin Ukhard Kakade Age: 28 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Kalyan 86. Anand Bhimrao Sawale Age: 31 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Krushna Garden Bldg, R. No. 3 Behind Secret High School, Varap Sahad, Kalyan, Thane 87. Manisha Dyaneshwar Awchar Age: 26 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Matruchaya Niwas Indira Nagar Opp-Shiv Mandir V. P Cross Road Dombivali 88. Yogendra Ankush Patil Age: 39 Year, Occ: Ward Boy Page 14 of 33 Prasad 903-WP-5395-2022.DOC At-Chave, Post-Mahapoli, Tel-Bhiwandi, Dist-Thane 89. Deepak Chavan Age: 25 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Kalyan Thane 90. Sameer Shaikh Age: 22 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Kalyan Thane 91. Akshay Santosh Bhalerao Age: 25 Year, Occ: Ward Boy R/at Durga Devi Pada Old Ambernath Goan Ambernath (E)
92. Pradip Arun Andhale
Age: 26 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
At Jirewadi Post Koaradgaon
Tal Pathardi Dist-Ahmednagar
93. Siddharth Zhatpate
Age: 25 Year, Occ: Ward Boy
R/at Kalyan (E) Thane ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation, Through its Municipal Commissioner, Having office at Shankar Rao Chowk, Kalyan (W), Dist. Thane.
2. Municipal Commissioner,
Having office at
Shankar Rao Chowk, Kalyan (W),
Dist. Thane
3. Assistant Commissioner,
General Administration Department,
Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation,
Having office at
Shankar Rao Chowk, Kalyan (W),
Dist. Thane
4. Chief Medical Officer,
Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation
Shankar Rao Chowk, Kalyan (W),
Dist. Thane
Page 15 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
5. State of Maharashtra,
(Through its Principal Secretary,
Having office at
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032). ...Respondents _______ Mr. Kishor Patil a/w Ashwini B. Jadhav for Petitioners.
Mr. A. S. Rao for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, AGP a/w A. R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent-State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 22 nd SEPTEMBER 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 14 th OCTOBER 2026
JUDGMENT (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.):
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since both pe titions involve identical questions of law, they are disposed of by this common Judgment and Order.
2. In Writ Petition No.5395 of 2022, the Petitioners seek to quash and set aside the order dated 19th April 2022 passed by the Respondent No.1 – the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation, whereby the Petitioners’ s ervices as Staff Nurses / Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) are terminate d with effect from 30 th April 2022. They also seek to quash and set aside the decision dated 22 nd March 2022, taken by Respondent No. 1 – the Corporation, to out source manpower for the Health Department, thereby substituting the Pet itioners. They further seek a direction to the Respondent-Corporation to regularise their services. Alternatively, the Petitioners seek a direction to the Respondent-Corpor ation to restrain it from terminating their services till the regular posts ar e filled and to consider the Petitioners themselves for appointment to the said posts.
Page 16 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
3. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No.8812 of 2022 also se ek similar relief.
However, the Petitioners therein seek to regularize t heir appointment as Ward boys.
4. The Petitioners claim to be working as Staff Nurse / ANM and ward boys in the Health Department of the Respondent No.1 – Corporation . Respondent Nos.
2 and 3 are the Municipal Commissioner and Assistant Comm issioner;
Respondent No. 4 is the Chief Medical Officer; and Responden t No. 5 is the State of Maharashtra.
5. The facts giving rise to the present petitions are th at during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Respondent-Corporation faced a staff shortage in its Health Department due to emergencies arising in the hospital. To meet the large influx of patients’ requirements, the Corporation decided to recrui t staff for the duration of the emergency. The Corporation issued an advertisement f or the posts of Staff Nurse/ANM and Ward boys. The Petitioners purported to m eet the eligibility criteria, applied, and were called for a walk-in inter view on 1 1th June 2020, 12 th June 2020, 30th June 2020 and 1 st July 2020. The Petitioners were selected for the respective posts by individual appointment orders, on a purely temporary and contractual basis, at a fixed monthly salary.
6. The Petitioners' services were continued from time to tim e, and fresh appointment letters were issued every three months on the same terms and conditions. In April 2022, the Petitioners learnt that t he Corporation intended to discontinue their services. Through the KDMC Employees Un ion, namely, the Page 17 of 33 Prasad 903-WP-5395-2022.DOC Sarva Shramik Sanghatna, the Petitioners filed a comp laint bearing ULP No. 40 of 2022 in the Industrial Court at Thane, seeking a declar ation that the Respondent- Corporation had engaged in unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
The Union also sought the absorption of the Petitioners i nto the Corporation on a permanent basis. By its order dated 21st February 2022, the Industrial Court restrained the Corporation from terminating the services of the Petitioners who had approached it. After hearing all parties concerned, the Industrial Tribunal, by its order dated 21st April 2022, vacated the interim order and dismissed th e complaint.
7. The Respondent-Corporation, however, by its decision dated 22 nd March 2022, decided to outsource the manpower required by its Health Department for a duration of three years or till recruitment of persons on the vacant posts, whichever is earlier. By order dated 19 th April 2022, the Corporation decided to discontinue the services of the Petitioners and other staff w.e.f. 2 nd February 2022 to 30 th April 2022.
8. In the meantime, the Petitioners filed an application before the Tribunal seeking an extension of the ad-interim relief granted by it until 30 th April 2022.
The Tribunal extended the relief until 30 th April 2022. Considering the Corporation's decision to discontinue their services, the Petitioners made a detailed representation to the CMO of the Corporation on 25 th April 2022, requesting that their services be continued and that they be appointed to sanctioned posts.
Page 18 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
However, their services were not regularised, leading them to file the present petition for the reliefs as prayed.
9. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the Respon dents were represented by counsel, and the petition was contested by filing an Affidavit-in- Reply. The Petitioners also filed a Rejoinder Affidavit.
10. Mr Kishor Patil, learned Counsel, appeared for the Peti tioners in both the petitions, Mr. A.S. Rao, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr P.P.
Kakde, learned AGP, a/w Mr A.R. Deolekar, AGP, represented the State.
1 1. Mr Patil submitted that the Petitioners’ appointments were made in accordance with due process of law and, given their educationa l qualifications and eligibility, their services should be regularised. He also stated that the Petitioners have worked continuously in the Health Department and that the CMOs of various Corporation hospitals have recommended that their s ervices be continued, as they were doing an excellent job. The Corporation hence ought to have considered that there are more than 150 vacant posts in t he Health Department, which could accommodate the Petitioners. Mr Patil further s ubmitted that the Corporation's decision to outsource manpower is contrary to a well-settled principle of law and that ad hoc employees cannot be rep laced by another set of ad hoc employees. He thus prayed that the petitions be al lowed and the Petitioners be granted the relief sought.
12. Mr A.S. Rao, learned counsel for the Corporation has taken us through the averments in the Reply Affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner. He submitted that Page 19 of 33 Prasad 903-WP-5395-2022.DOC the petitions are misconceived and that the Petitioners, being inducted as contractual employees, they cannot challenge the Corporation' s decision to outsource manpower on the ground that ad hoc employees can not replace another set of ad hoc employees, such as the Petitioners. Mr D eolekar also took us through appointment letters showing that their appointments we re purely contractual and for a fixed duration to meet the emergency requirement d uring the COVID-19 pandemic. The Petitioners cannot seek regularisation, nor can they assail the Corporation's policy decision to outsource manpower. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 1, as well as Patel Savan Bharatbhai v. State of Gujarat2. Mr Rao submitted that once the Petitioners were recruited purely and exclusively for COVID-related work and, since the exigency no longer exists, the Corporation is well within its rights to discontinue their services. He also submitted that the Corporation has decided to pay the Petitioners a consolidated honorarium. The Petitioners und erstood that their posts were purely contractual and for a limited period and had accepted the terms and conditions. They are thus estopped from assailing the Corpora tion's acts as complained of in the petition. Further, Mr Rao submitte d that, since COVID-19 subsided, there are negligible patients, and the Heal th Department can work with the existing staff. Continuing the services of the Pet itioners has created a huge financial burden on the Corporation, which is already facing a severe financial crunch.
1 (2006) 4 SCC 1
2 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 3297
Page 20 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
13. It is next submitted on behalf of the Corporation that th e new posts were sanctioned in the year 2021 itself. While sanctioning t he established schedule, the State Government imposed conditions that establishment expenditure shall not go beyond 35% and that, for any excess appointments, the Government had refused to provide additional funds to the Corporation. Since the C orporation's expenditure exceeded 35%, it has taken a policy decisi on to outsource the additional staff required for the Health Department. In these circumstances, Mr Rao submitted that the Petitioners have no legal right to demand regularisation and cannot assail the Corporation's policy decision.
14. By its Order dated 29 th April 2022, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notice to the Respondent, granted an ad- interim relief to the Petitioners in terms of prayer clause (g) of the Writ P etition No. 5395/2022 and Writ Petition No.8812/ 2022. Similar interim relief w as also granted to the Petitioners in the companion Writ Petition. In terms of t he ad-interim relief, the impugned Order terminating the services of the Petition ers as Staff Nurse/ANM and Ward boys was stayed during the pendency of the pre sent writ petitions. The said Order dated 29th April 2022 reads as below:
“Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manish Gupta and another v/s.
President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and ors ., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 485.
Para 12 of the said judgment reads as follows:
“12. A perusal of the advertisement dated 24th June, 2016 i ssued by the Principal, Government Kamla Raja Girls Post Graduate Autonomous College, Gwalior, which is at Annexure P-2 of the Appeal Paper book and the advertisement dated 2nd July, 201 6 issued by the Principal, SMS Government Model Science College, Gwalior, M.P., which is at Annexure P- 3 of the Appeal Pa per Page 21 of 33 Prasad 903-WP-5395-2022.DOC Book, would show that the appointments were to be made aft er the candidates had gone through due selection procedure. Though Shri Nataraj, learned ASG has strenuously urged that the appointments of the appellants were as guest lecturers and n ot as ad hoc employees, from the nature of the advertisements, it coul d clearly be seen that the appellants were appointed on ad ho c basis.
It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee can not be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replace d only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rattan Lal v/s.
State of Harayana, (1985) 4 SCC 43 and on the order of th is Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh v/s. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292.”
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners , who are appointed after due process of law initially for temp orary period of 3 months on contractual basis and continued later, cannot be replaced by the Respondent-Corporation by another set of ad hoc employees.
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation submits that the Petitioners were only employed temporarily for the Covid pandemic p eriod and the Respondent-Corporation has only outsourced manpower of the Health Department.
4. Considering the fact that the Petitioners are not being repla ced by regular employees, we are inclined to grant ad-interim relief in ter ms of prayer clause (g) of the Petition. We accordingly direct that until the next date, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer claus e (g), which reads as follows:
“(g) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay execution, operation and implementation of the impugned Order dated 19- 04-2022 of the Respondent No. 1, Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation, terminating the services of the Petitioners as Staff Nurse/NM w.e.f. 30-04-2022.”
5. Let the Respondent-Corporation file Affidavit-in-Reply by 15 June 2022 with copy to the other side. Rejoinder, if any, bef ore the next date.
6. Stand over to 27 June 2022.”
REASONS
15. At the outset, it is necessary to carefully peruse th e contents of the advertisement issued by the Respondent-Corporation. The adv ertisement states Page 22 of 33 Prasad 903-WP-5395-2022.DOC that the posts will be filled on a temporary and contra ct basis, in view of the outbreak of the pandemic and the increased requirement of manpower to cater to the needs of the increasing number of patients requirin g healthcare. In addition to the basic qualifications required, the eligibility crite ria specified in the advertisement for Staff Nurse/ANM were G.N.M/B.Sc. Nursing. It also stated that, if the required number of staff nurses are not availa ble, appointments will be made from ANM eligibility holders, not exceeding 216. For the appointment of Ward Boys, the eligibility criteria required were 10 th pass with 2 years' experience as a Ward Boy in any hospital. The terms and conditions of the advertisement state that preference will be given to retired staff/officers/wa rd doctors and nurses who are competent and willing to work and do not have diabetes/high blood pressure, heart disease, etc. Furthermore, Clause (6) of the General Te rms and Conditions of the advertisement specified that selected candidates would be appointed for COVID- 19, and their appointment would be for the duration of COVID-19. The appointment was to terminate automatically once the pandemic ended. It was further specified that if the pandemic condition was redu ced or the COVID-19 treatment room at the hospital closed, the appointment wou ld stand automatically terminated. The employees recruited pursuant to the said advertisement will not be given one month's notice prior to termination. Clause (1 0) of the advertisement also stated that priority will be given to retired of ficers/staff in the hospital/institution started by the Respondent-Corporat ion to deal with the outbreak. Clause (14) specifically stated that candidates would not be able to make any claim regarding re-appointment or inclusion in the municipal service, or Page 23 of 33 Prasad 903-WP-5395-2022.DOC service protection, through court or government. Thus, the r ecruitment was purely on a contractual basis and for the contingency of the pandem ic and outbreak of COVID-19.
16. The temporary nature of the appointment is demonstrated i n the advertisement itself. The Respondent-Corporation has clear ly and unequivocally stated that the appointment shall automatically end up on the abatement of the pandemic. Furthermore, the eligibility criteria stated included an opening for retired personnel as well. Thus, on a plain reading of the advertisement, the Respondent-Corporation's intention to recruit employees to meet the requirement of an overload of patients needing health care on account of the pandemic was quite clear. The intent was only to tide over the contingency of COVID-19 affected patients. Thus, the singular intent of the appointment s was temporary, to meet the peculiar contingency, and they were to terminate automatically. There is nothing in the advertisement to lead us to doubt the intent of th e Corporation or to even remotely suggest avoiding filling up vacant regular posts.
17. The terms of the advertisement, which permitted retired personnel to apply, also suggest the extreme urgency under which the Corpor ation was functioning at the relevant period. The appointments were clearly for a particular project, i.e., to meet the healthcare requirements during the pandemic. Thus, since the appointment itself was a temporary engagement in conne ction with a project, the temporary service automatically ended with the end of th e project. The Page 24 of 33 Prasad 903-WP-5395-2022.DOC appointment was co-terminus with the project. Hence, we find no infirmity in the Respondent-Corporation's decision to terminate the Petitioners' services.
18. The Respondents’ contention is further strengthened by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court on this legal aspect. In the case of Mohd.Abdul Kadir and Another vs Director General of Police, Assam and others 3, the Supreme Court held as below: - “13. The fact that the appellants were employed under the PIF Additional Scheme is not disputed. The duration of PIF Additiona l Scheme under which they are employed was initially two years, to be reviewed for continuation along with the original PIF Scheme. The said scheme is being extended from time to time and is being continued. If the temp orary or ad- hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of the persons employed under the Project or Scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the Project or the Scheme.
14. The fact that the Scheme had been in operation for some dec ades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularization. Even if any posts are sanctioned with reference t o the Scheme, such sanction is of ad hoc or temporary posts co-termin us with the scheme and not of permanent posts.
15. On completion of the project or discontinuance of the scheme , those who were engaged with reference to or in connection with such Project or Scheme cannot claim any right to continue in servi ce, nor seek regularization in some other project or service. (See Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana - 1987 (4) SCC 634, Delhi Development Horticul ture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration - 1992 (4) SCC 99, Hin dustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., vs. Employees Union - 1995 (3) SC C 474, UP Land Development Corporation vs. Amar Singh - 2003 (5) SCC 388, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad UP v. Anil Kumar Mishra - 200 5 (5) SCC 122, Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi - 2006 (4 ) SCC 31, Indian Council of Medical Research vs. K. Rajyalakshmi - 2007 ( 2) SCC 332, and Lal Mohammed vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. - 200 7 (2) SCC 513). In view of this settled position, the appellants will not be entitled to regularization.
16. We may next consider the challenge to the procedure of annual termination and reappointment introduced by the circular dated 17.3.1995.
3 (2009) 6 SCC 61 1
Page 25 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
The PIF Scheme and PIF Additional Scheme were introduced b y Government of India. The scheme does not contemplate or require su ch periodical termination and re-appointment. Only ex-servicemen are eligible to be selected under the scheme and that too after undergoing regular selection process under the Scheme. They joined the scheme being under the impression that they will be continued as long as the PIF Additional Scheme was continued. The artificial annual breaks and reappointments were introduced by the state agency entrusted with the opera tion of the Scheme. This Court has always frowned upon artificial breaks in service.
17. When the ad-hoc appointment is under a scheme and is in accordance with the selection process prescribed by the scheme, there is no reason why those appointed under the scheme should not be continued as long as the scheme continues. Ad-hoc appointments under schemes are normally co-terminus with the scheme (subject of course to ea rlier termination either on medical or disciplinary grounds, or for unsat isfactory service or on attainment of normal age of retirement). Irrespective of the length of their ad hoc service or the scheme, they will not be entitled to regularization nor to the security of tenure and service benefits available to the regular employees. In this background, particularly in v iew of the continuing Scheme, the ex-serviceman employed after undergoing sel ection process, need not be subjected to the agony, anxiety, humiliat ion and vicissitudes of annual termination and re-engagement, merely becau se their appointment is termed as ad hoc appointments.
18. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judg e was justified in observing that the process of termination and re-appoin tment every year should be avoided and the appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, co- terminus with the scheme. The circular dated 17.3.1995 dir ecting artificial breaks by annual terminations followed by fresh appointment, being contrary to the PIF Additional Scheme and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be is quashed.”
19. Similarly, in the decision of a case decided by the Auran gabad Bench of this Court in the matter of ATMA Employee’s Welfare Association vs The Union of India4 the Court held that appointments made for a particular project can continue for as long as the project continues. However, once the pr oject is complete or abandoned, the employer cannot be faulted for terminating the services of employees recruited specifically for that project. In th is context, the court held that 4 Writ Petition No. 5060/2015 decided on 24th August 2016 Page 26 of 33 Prasad 903-WP-5395-2022.DOC the services of such employees will be co-terminus with that of the project. The relevant portion of the decision is as under: - “14. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment in the case of Md. Abdul Kadir and anr Vs. Director General Of Poli ce, (2009) SCC- 61 1, wherein the Government of India formulated the Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners Scheme (“PIF Scheme” for short) for A ssam, for strengthening the Assam Government machinery for detention and deportation of foreigners in the year 1960. The scheme had been e xtended from time to time and was in force even when the above cited judgment was delivered. As per the said scheme, only exservicemen were to be appointed to the additional posts for contract period of one year. After th e said period of one year, they were being given breaks and reappointed considering their performance. The artificial annual breaks and reappointments wer e introduced by the State Agency entrusted with the operation of t he scheme by issuing circular dated 17th March, 1995. Being aggrieved by process of termination and reappointment introduced by the said circular an d consequences thereof, appellant nos.1 and 2 therein, approache d the Gauhati High Court. The learned Single Judge of the Gauhat i High Court allowed the writ petition filed by them and held that the a ppellants should be continued as long as the scheme was continued by the Govern ment of India. The said decision was set aside by Division Bench of th e Gauhati High Court. The decision was challenged before the Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which came to be allowed partly with the following observations.
“This Court has always frowned upon artificial breaks in service.
When the ad hoc appointment is under a scheme and is in accordance with the selection process prescribed by the scheme, there is no reason why those appointed under the scheme shoul d not be continued as long as the scheme continues. Ad hoc appointments under schemes are normally coterminus with the scheme (subject of course to earlier termination either on medical or disciplinary grounds, or for unsatisfactory service or on att ainment of normal age of retirement). Irrespective of the length of their a d hoc service or the scheme, they will not be entitled to regulari zation nor to the security of tenure and service benefits available to the regular employees. In this background, particularly in view of the continuing Scheme, the exserviceman employed after undergoing selection process, need not be subjected to the agony, anxiety , humiliation and vicissitudes of annual termination re engagement, merely because their appointment is termed as ad hoc appointments. We are therefore of the view that the learned Sing le Judge was justified in observing that the process of termination and reappointment every year should be avoided and the appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but pur ely on ad hoc and temporary basis, coterminus with the scheme. The Page 27 of 33 Prasad 903-WP-5395-2022.DOC circular dated 17.3.1995 directing artificial breaks by ann ual terminations followed by fresh appointment, being contrary to the PIF Additional Scheme and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be quashed.”
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on common judgment in the case of of Ajay s/o Ashokrao Ghatole and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.9539 of 2012 and the companion writ petitions), delivered by this Court on 12th March , 2014, wherein, the petitioners claimed to be appointed as Data Entry O perators on contract basis challenged the communication dated 9th November, 2012, issued by the Director of Education (Primary), directing of the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishads in the State of Maharashtra to start the process of recruitment of Data Entry Operators on contract basis afresh. The said writ petition came to be allowed with the following observations.
“In the present case, the petitioners have undergone the selection process undertaken by the State Government as per its policy. There is no objection to the recruitment process that has been under gone by the present petitioners. The petitioners are not claiming permanent status based upon their temporary employment or absorption or regularisation. What is claimed by the petitioners is that they should be continued in employment till the scheme in question is continued or till there is a change in the requirem ent of the qualification under the scheme by the Central Government. The case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment of A pex Court in the case of the Mohd. Abdul Kadir (cited supra).”
16. The controversy involved in the present case is rather simil ar to that of the case of Ajay s/o Ashokrao Ghatole and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, (supra). In view of the above cited judgments, we are of the considered opinion that the cosmetic change in th e Guidelines of 2010 and 2014 pertaining to recruitment of the staff of the scheme just by substituting the word “should” for the word “may” cannot b e attached with any importance. There is no rational or justification in discontin uing the services of the members of the petitioners, who are trained and ex perienced hands, and allowing the respondents to fill up the said p osts on contract basis only from the fresh candidates through service providers. As stated by the petitioner itself, its members are not claiming regularisation of their services or seeking the benefits of permanency. The members of the petitioner certainly are entitled to expect reasonably continuat ion of their services until termination of the above referred scheme or until attaining the age of superannuation, whichever occurs earlier. In view of the jud gment in case of Md. Abdul Kadir and anr Vs. Director General Of Police, (supra), the members of the petitioner would not be entitled for regularisation of their services and their services would be coterminus with the abovementioned scheme. In the result, we allow the writ petition with the following order.
O R D E R
Page 28 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
(i) The impugned communication dated 9th April, 2015, to th e extent of Clause2 issued by respondent no.2 directing appointment on contract basis through outsourcing, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents shall continue the services of the members of the petitioner until continuation of the scheme sponsored by Respondent no.1Union of India or until they attain the age of superannuation, whichever occurs earlier, subject of course to earl ier termination either on medical or disciplinary grounds or for unsat isfactory performance.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(iv) The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(v) The parties shall bear their own costs.”
20. The Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of Madan Singh vs State of Haryana5 referred to its earlier decision in the matter of State of Karnataka vs M.L Kesari6 wherein the exceptions to the general principle against ‘regularisation’ enunciated in the case of Umadevi (supra) were reiterated. In Umadevi (supra), a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court held that appointm ents made without following the due process or the rules relating to appoi ntment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absor ption, regularization or re-engagement nor make their service permanent, and t he High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indi a should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in term s of the constitutional scheme, and that the courts must be careful in ensurin g that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instrum ents to facilitate the by passing 5 2026 INSC 379 6 (2010) 9 SCC 247 Page 29 of 33 Prasad 903-WP-5395-2022.DOC of the constitutional and statutory mandates. The Supreme Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual, or daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he was appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The ex ceptions in the above position, as reiterated in M.L Kesari (supra) and Madan Singh (supra) read as below:
“5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against `regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled :
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or mor e in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued h im in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued ag ainst sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be consid ered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but ha d been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive select ion, such appointments are considered to be irregular.
(iii) Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of t hose irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years w ithout the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one- time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure mu st be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006).”
21. Hence, it is quite clear that the appointments of the Petitioners in the present case, being purely of a contractual and temporary nature, made only for the purpose of a particular project, namely, meeting the contingency of the COVID-19 situation, are liable to be terminated in terms of th e advertisement itself.
Page 30 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
Recruitment cannot be said to be regular, since even r etired personnel were permitted to apply. Candidates averse to seeking temp orary employment for the contingency period would not have applied; hence, the lev el playing field cannot be said to be regular. Considering the factual and the settled legal position, we have no hesitation in holding that there is no infirmity in the decision of the Respondent-Corporation to terminate the services of the Petitioners.
22. The Petitioners have relied on a series of decisions of th is court and the Supreme Court of India including its decision in the matte r of Manish Gupta v.
President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors.7. The said decision relates to the appointment of appellants therein as guest lecturers a nd not ‘ad-hoc’ employees.
The Supreme Court affirmed the continuation of the employe es' services therein, finding that the appointments were made pursuant to a due selection procedure.
There was no question of the advertisement in that case specifically providing temporary recruitment based on a contingency of a particul ar cause, namely, the pandemic in the present case. The other cases cited by the Petitioners are distinct from the issues involved in the present matter and ar e distinguishable on the facts of the said cases. Hence, the Petitioners' reliance on th e said decisions does not assist them.
23. Another limb of the Petitioners’ argument is that they have continued in service pursuant to the ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 29 th April 2022.
The Petitioners thus claim equity on the basis of the said interim order. The settled legal position in this regard is that an interim order is always subject to the outcome 7 (2022) 15 SCC 540 Page 31 of 33 Prasad 903-WP-5395-2022.DOC of the final adjudication. If the petitioner is unsuccessf ul in the final decision, the interim order will stand set aside. Hence, appointment or its continuance by an interim order does not create any right, nor does the peti tioner get any right to regularisation on that basis. The Supreme Court in the ca se of State of H.P v.
Nodha Ram & Ors. 8 where the facts revealed that the respondent-employees were engaged on daily wages on a Muster Roll basis in the Ce ntral Scheme and their services were dispensed with on closure of the scheme, it was held that when the project is completed and closed due to non-availability of funds, the employees have to go along with its closure. No vested right is created in the employees in temporary employment. Directions cannot be given to reg ularise their services in the absence of any existing vacancies, nor can directions be given to regularise their service.
24. Considering the facts and circumstances and the settled le gal position as discussed hereinabove, we are of the clear opinion that t here is no infirmity in the act of the Respondent-Corporation in issuing the Impugned Order dated 19th April 2022 terminating the service of the Petitioners in Wr it Petition No. 5395 of 2022 as staff nurse/ANM and in Writ Petition No. 8812 of 20 22 as Ward boys.
Consequently, the prayer for regularisation of their ser vices does not survive. The Respondent-Corporation is also well within its rights to formulate a policy to outsource employees or any other such policy in the interest of the Corporation.
25. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitions a re dismissed. The ad-interim orders dated 29th April 2022 stand vacated in both the petitions.
8 1998 SCC (L&S) 478
Page 32 of 33
Prasad
903-WP-5395-2022.DOC
26. Rule is accordingly discharged. No costs.
27. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petitions, Interim A pplications, if any, also stand disposed of.
28. After the order was pronounced, Ms. Jadhav, learned Counse l appearing for the Petitioners, sought continuation of the ad-interim order dated 29 th April 2022.
Considering the larger public interest and the findings recorded in the present Judgment and Order, the prayer is rejected.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 33 of 33
Prasad