Full Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10886 OF 2023
City Industrial Development Corporation of
Maharashtra Ltd.
A Company registered under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its head office at 2nd
Floor, CIDCO Bhavan, CBD, Navi Mumbai – 400 614.
Having its registered office at Nirmal, 2nd
Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. .. Petitioner
Age – 37 years, residing at House No.447, Karave Village, Near Mari Aai Temple, Vitthal Rukhmani Marg, Post – Nerul, Tal. and District Thane, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400 706. .. Respondent
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10886 OF 2023
Mr. Dinesh Suresh Bhoir
..
Applicant
(Orig. Respondent)
Maharashtra Ltd. ..
Respondent
(Orig. Petitioner) ....................
Mr. Omprakash Jha a/w. Ms. Roopdaksha Basu and Ms. Anshita
Dave, Advocates for Petitioner in Writ Petition and Respondent in
Interim Application No.14912 of 2023.
Ms. Vaishali Jagdale, Advocate for Respondent and Applicant in
Interim Application No.14912 of 2023. ...................
JUDGMENT
1. This Writ Petition is filed under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (for short “CIDCO”) a registered Government Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 taking exception to the judgment and order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane (for short “the impugned judgment”), inter alia, declaring that – CIDCO engaged in unfair labour practices in terms of Item Nos.5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short “MRTU & PULP Act”) and directing CIDCO to appoint Respondent as a permanent employee and extend all permanency benefits to him. Heard. Rule. By consent of parties Petition is heard finally.
2. Before I delineate the facts in the present case, it needs to be stated at the outset that Respondent was appointed as Assistant Law Officer by CIDCO for the first time on 22.09.2011 for a period of 6 months as a “contractual employee” on the basis of a walk-in interview and thereafter given intermittent breaks and continued to be appointed. After Respondent approached the Industrial Court, his services have been continued by CIDCO. What is pertinent to be noted is that grievance of unfair labour practices pleaded by Respondent in his complaint filed under the MRTU & PULP Act before the Industrial 2 of 22 Court relates to grant of status of permanent employee / permanency on the ground that he has completed 240 days of continuous employment per year with CIDCO since the year 2011. In effect Respondent claimed to be a “workman”. Complaint was filed in the year 2016, after an unsuccessful attempt by Respondent in the year 2014 to get himself appointed on merits in the recruitment process conducted by CIDCO in the open category. It needs to be mentioned that Respondent did not meet the minimum eligibility educational qualification criteria i.e. having the minimum number of marks in the LLB examination for being appointed as Assistant Law Officer under the recruitment Rules. And hence did not qualify.
3. Though it is trite that under the provisions of Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act, any complaint against commission of unfair labour practices should be filed within 90 days from the date of occurrence of such unfair labour practices, the same is not complied with and seen in the facts of the present case.
4. Before I advert to the impugned judgment and submissions, such of the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the lis challenging the impugned judgment passed by the Industrial Court are outlined herein under:-
4.1. In response to a walk-in newspaper advertisement, Respondent was appointed on temporary basis as Assistant Law 3 of 22 Officer on contract in the office of the Chief Controller of Unauthorized Constructions of the Petitioner – CIDCO for a period of 6 months commencing from 26.09.2011 by appointment letter dated 22.09.2011. The period of contract was for 6 months upto 25.03.2012 on the Respondent being paid a consolidated remuneration of Rs.15,000/- per month. Respondent was given the break on 25.03.2012. Petitioner once again issued an advertisement for appointment of Assistant Law Officer on contractual basis after 7 months. Respondent once again applied and by appointment letter dated 30.10.2012 was appointed on contract basis for a period of 6 months. This time the consolidated remuneration was Rs.25,000/- per month. On 29.04.2013, he was given the break and by fresh appointment letter dated 15.05.2013, he was once again appointed as Assistant Law Officer on contractual basis w.e.f. 02.05.2013 upto 01.11.2013.
4.2. Respondent continued to serve as Assistant Law Officer on contract basis beyond his tenure under appointment letter dated 15.05.2013 and on 23.09.2014 the contract period was again extended for a further period of 7 months w.e.f. 01.04.2014 to 31.10.2014 on the same terms. Thereafter once again there was a break of 7 months after which Respondent was appointed as Assistant Law Officer by appointment letter dated 12.02.2016 for a period of 12 4 of 22 months w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016 on similar terms.
4.3. Record shows that Respondent continued to work as Assistant Law Officer and his term was continued by letter dated 11.05.2017, in view of the fact that Respondent had by that time approached the Industrial Court by his complaint and the Court directed not to terminate his services without following the due process of law till the final disposal of his complaint. In that view of the matter, CIDCO continued his services as Assistant Law Officer on contractual basis by giving him extension on same terms and conditions with intermittent breaks and has continued his services till date.
4.4. In the year 2016, Respondent filed complaint of unfair labour practices under Section 28 read with Item Nos.5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act on the ground that he was directly recruited to the post of Assistant Law Officer on and from 22.09.2011 and his service was continued since 22.09.2011 and his last drawn wages were Rs.25,000/- per month and alleging that on and from 12.02.2016 instead of issuing a regular posting order, Petitioner – CIDCO issued letter of extension to appoint him.
4.5. It is further alleged in the complaint that Maharashtra Civil Services Rules for pay and allowances to its employees and recruitment procedure adopted by Petitioner- CIDCO and prescribed 5 of 22 for the post of Assistant Law Officer were fulfilled by him during his recruitment at the inception in September, 2011 and his services were continued on the same post by giving him one or two days artificial breaks.
4.6. However, in the same breath, it is stated in the complaint that though Respondent was designated as Assistant Law Officer, his duties were of a clerical nature and therefore he was covered under the definition of “workman” as defined under the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the definition of “employee” as defined under the MRTU & PULP Act and on the basis of his continued employment with Petitioner – CIDCO, he ought to have been granted regular posting / permanency though there were availability of permanent vacant posts of Assistant Law Officer.
4.7. It is further stated in the complaint that appointment of Respondent was of a regular nature as he was doing the same work as other Assistant Law Officers / Law Officers who were recruited and employed by Petitioner – CIDCO but he was not given the regular pay scale, allowances and facilities received by the other Assistant Law Officers / Law Officers of Petitioner and he was entitled to the same on parity. It is stated in the complaint that his initial appointment in the year 2011 was legal and proper and he possessed the appropriate qualification required to be appointed as Assistant Law Officer and 6 of 22 hence was entitled for permanency / permanent employment on the principle of ‘equal wages for equal work’. He also sought benefit of circular dated 06.09.2002 issued by Petitioner – CIDCO for seeking extension of pay parity allowances and facilities at par with other permanent employees of Petitioner including the benefits of 6th Pay Commission.
4.8. One more ground pleaded is that he is a project affected person and he has a right to be absorbed on permanent basis in the employment of Petitioner – CIDCO. In the complaint, it is stated that the recognized Union established in Petitioner – CIDCO was not willing to espouse his cause.
4.9. On the basis of the above grounds, Respondent sought appointment as permanent Assistant Law Officer by pleading that Industrial Employment Standing orders are applicable to the Petitioner – CIDCO and under the said Standing Orders if an employee completes 240 days in a calendar year, he is to be treated as a permanent employee of the establishment and he had fulfilled the said condition and in law attained the status of a permanent employee of CIDCO.
4.10. The complaint was resisted by Petitioner - CIDCO by filing reply below Exhibit C-5 contending that Respondent was holding a license from the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to practice as an Advocate and he cannot be deemed to be a “workman” for several 7 of 22 reasons. It was CIDCO’s case that Respondent was appointed on contract basis considering his professional skills, having a law degree and legal knowledge required for intellectual work done by a legal professional having legal acumen. It was specifically pleaded that post of Assistant Law Officer in CIDCO is a Class - I Officer post and a “workman” cannot be appointed on such a post of Class - I officer. It was further pleaded that Respondent’s appointment was not against any vacant post but was through a walk-in-interview looking into the need and urgency for assisting in the legal work of the legal department. It was pleaded that appointment of Respondent at the inception in the year 2011 was not done by following the due process of law by following the recruitment process in the matter of public employment but was purely on walk-in and temporary basis. It was responded that Respondent’s case that he had fulfilled all recruitment rules and was eligible for appointment as Assistant Law Officer is false on the face of record. The contentions of Respondent are defied by his own appointment letter and the fact that he did not meet the eligibility criteria required for appointment as Assistant Law Officer since he did not have the minimum requisite number of qualifying marks in the LLB examination. This was so because, Respondent had applied in the year 2014 in the regular recruitment process conducted by CIDCO and his candidature was rejected for not possessing the minimum required marks in the LLB examination for appointment as Assistant Law 8 of 22 Officer on permanent basis. Petitioner pleaded that under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP ACT a dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act can only be raised by a recognized Union by filing a complaint. It was pleaded that in the instant case the recognized Union adhering to the above stand of the Petitioner rightly refused to espouse the cause of Respondent. It was further pleaded that filing of the complaint for the first time in the year 2016 was hopelessly time barred and in view of the above reasons, there was no unfair labour practice on the part of CIDCO.
4.11. Evidence was led on behalf of Petitioner - CIDCO of one of its Officer and by Respondent himself. Various documents were placed on record during evidence.
4.12. Before the Industrial Court, it was argued on behalf of Respondent that he possessed the necessary technical qualifications for appointment as Assistant Law Officer. Next, it was argued that he was appointed against a vacant post by following the due process of interview and selection. Further, it was argued that post of Assistant Law Officer was a merely glorified clerical post and clerical in nature having no supervisory or managerial function or control over staff and therefore an Assistant Law Officer has to be categorized as a mere “workman”. As against these submissions of Respondent, it was argued by CIDCO that the documentary evidence placed on record by 9 of 22 the Officer reflected that Respondent was not appointed in the regular course of the recruitment by following the recruitment process of eligibility, written test, interview and appointment. It was argued that merely on the basis of submission of Sanad i.e license from the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, Respondent was appointed on contractual basis as Assistant Law Officer to meet the exigency of work in the legal department. Therefore, he could not be deemed to be a “workman”. It was further argued that the allegations of Respondent that recruitment procedure was followed at the time of his appointment is falsified by his own appointment letter and therefore the complaint ought to be dismissed.
4.13. The Complaint was resisted by the Petitioner – CIDCO by filing a detailed Affidavit-in-Reply dated 25.08.2016. Evidence was led by the Respondent before the learned Industrial Court by filing his Affidavit-in-lieu of Examination-in-chief dated 18.01.2019 in support of the Complaint whereas evidence of one Ms. Sheetal Ghope working in the Personnel Department was led by the Petitioner – CIDCO by filing her Affidavit-in-lieu of Examination-in-chief dated 26.09.2019.
4.14. There is no dispute about the aforementioned facts as also the documents placed on record for consideration in so far as the criterion for recruitment as Assistant Law Officer/s is concerned. Both the parties are ad idem on the same. 10 of 22
4.15. After considering the case of both parties, by impugned judgment dated 10.02.2020, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint partly declaring that Petitioner – CIDCO engaged in unfair labour practices as contemplated under Item Nos.5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act whilst directing the Petitioner – CIDCO to appoint Respondent on a permanent post as and when the vacancy would arise and give all benefits of the circular dated 06.09.2002 to Respondent and extend all benefits of permanency as applicable to a regular employee from the initial date of his appointment.
4.16. Hence, the present Petition. Needless to state that in the meanwhile, Respondent continued to work with the Petitioner – CIDCO as Assistant Law Officer and even does so till today.
4.17. In the meanwhile in the year 2023, certain vacancies arose for recruitment to the post of Assistant Law Officer in CIDCO. I am informed that there are 8 posts of Assistant Law Officers. In view of vacancies, Petitioner – CIDCO issued advertisement for filling up the said posts.
4.18. Being aggrieved, the Applicant / Original Respondent filed Interim Application No.14912 of 2023 seeking an embargo on CIDCO to keep one permanent post of Assistant Law Officer vacant, in view of the impugned judgment passed by the Industrial Court which is the 11 of 22 subject matter of challenge in the present Petition. The Interim Application is filed by the Applicant on 30.08.2023.
5. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.
6. Mr. Jha, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner – CIDCO has made the following submissions:-
6.1. Respondent is holding Sanad to practice as Advocate issued by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa which implies that he is a practicing Advocate and not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6.2. Petitioner – CIDCO after considering his professional skills and legal knowledge appointed him as Assistant Law Officer on contract basis. That work done by Respondent is in the nature of intellectual work done by a legal professional having legal acumen and salary drawn by Respondent initially was Rs.15,000/- initially and Rs.25,000/- later.
6.3. That in 2014 Respondent had applied for the post of Assistant Law Officer in the regular recruitment process on regular basis which was advertised by following due process, but due to his ineligibility in complying with the mandatory eligibility criteria for appointment to this post, his Application was rejected. This implied 12 of 22 that he was not eligible to be appointed for the post of Assistant Law Officer on regular basis.
6.4. Thereafter the posts of Assistant Law Officer on regular basis were filled up by two new Assistant Law Officers after considering their eligibility and by following the due process.
6.5. Respondent sought relief being a workman and prayed to be absorbed as Assistant Law Officer on regular basis, but the post of Assistant Law Officer is a Class – I Officer post. Hence a workman cannot be placed in the post of Class – I Officer.
6.6. That Respondent was appointed as Assistant Law Officer on contract basis on the Application of Respondent after one post got vacant and looking into the need and urgency for assisting the legal department, his Application was considered till the permanent arrangement of filling the post of Assistant Law Officer on regular basis was not made. Hence a person whose appointment is made for temporary purpose cannot be absorbed on a regular post.
6.7. That complaint filed under the MRTU & PULP Act seeking claim of permanency in CIDCO is not legally maintainable for the reason that entry of Respondent in the employment of CIDCO was itself without following due process of law. This is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of 13 of 22 Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi[1].
6.8. That CIDCO adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules only for payment and allowances to its employees. The recruitment procedure and reservation / roster for a particular post is only as per Government Resolution approved by the State Government from time to time. The qualification and other criteria prescribed for the particular post is as mentioned in CIDCO’s recruitment schedule which are not met with by the Respondent.
6.9. That in the light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (first supra), it is a well settled position that creation of a post is not within the domain of the judicial function and that function is of an executive nature.
6.10. That the complaint is not maintainable under Item No.6 as only a recognized union can make a complaint under the said Item as per the special provision of Section 21 of the MRTU & PULP Act.
6.11. That even assuming that there is cause of action, the complaint is barred by limitation and no Application for condonation of delay is also made out and hence the complaint is not maintainable on the grounds of delay and it is liable to be dismissed.
6.12. That the Industrial Court derived no jurisdiction to grant permanent status and benefits to Respondent under the MRTU & PULP Act. Under Item Nos.[5] and 9 of the Schedule IV to the MRTU & PULP the Industrial Court derived no jurisdiction to grant any benefit to the Respondent except that is otherwise available to him as per the terms of orders of appointment issued to him. It is submitted that admittedly the same was for fixed period / tenure and the benefits to which, he is entitled to, is also made out in the appointment orders. The said appointment orders when accepted, amounted to an agreement between the parties.
6.13. That Respondent is not a workman as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also does not fall under the definition of employee under the MRTU & PULP Act; that Respondent is not a workman as the Respondent is appointed on contract basis as Assistant Law Officer and is carrying out work in managerial and/or administrative capacity.
6.14. In support of his above submissions, Mr. Jha has referred to and relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.[2] and
(ii) Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar and Ors. Vs. State of
2 Special Leave to Appeal © No.2543 of 2023 decided on 12.09.2023 3 2022 SCC Online Bom 2676: (2023) 1 AIR Bom. R 75 (decided on 20.09.2022) 15 of 22
7. PER-CONTRA, Ms. Jagdale, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent has made the following submissions:-
7.1. That Respondent is directly recruited to the post of Assistant Law Officer, initially on and from 22.09.2011 for a period of 6 months and thereafter he was continued after giving one or two day’s artificial breaks; that the service of Respondent is continuous since 22.09.2011; that the past service record of the Respondent is extremely clean and good and the last drawn wages of the Respondent are Rs.25,000/- as consolidated wages per month.
7.2. That while recruiting the Respondent, he had fulfilled all requirements of the recruitment procedure;
7.3. That he was recruited as Assistant Law Officer initially in the month of September 2011 and since then he has continued in the same post by suffering one or two days artificial breaks. That nature of duty of the Respondent is merely to receive notices or summons from the Court and earmark them to the Section of Controller of Unauthorized Constructions Department. Then he has to prepare the note to the legal section for appointment of concerned Advocate to represent CIDCO in the appropriate Courts. After appointment of the Panel Advocate, Respondent has to forward the requisite documents / papers relating to the concerned case and also to provide all concerned documents and instructions / remarks to the concerned 16 of 22 Advocate from the concerned department. Respondent thereafter has to obtain say / written statement on behalf of Petitioner – CIDCO from the concerned Advocate and obtain the signature of the CIDCO officials and thereafter pursue the case alongwith the concerned Advocates. That apart, Respondent has to do all follow up work and also keep and maintain the record of each and every case. That for doing all above work, Respondent is not provided with any Assistant or Clerk nor he is empowered to grant / recommend leave of any employee. Respondent has also no right to issue memo or disciplinary action against any employee. Respondent has also no right to spend any amount on behalf of CIDCO or to take any administrative decision on behalf of CIDCO. Thus though the Respondent was designated as Assistant Law Officer, his duties were of a mere clerical nature and accordingly Respondent fell under the definition of “workman” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also the definition of “employee” as defined under the MRTU & PULP Act.
8. In support of her above submissions, Ms. Jagdale has referred to and relied upon the following decisions:-
(i) Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. Vs. The Workmen[4];
(ii) State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari and Ors.5;
(iii) Sachin Ambadas Dawale Vs. State of Maharashtra[6];
(iv) Amarkant Rai Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.7;
(v) Sheo Narain Nagar and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.8;
(vi) Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh Vs. M/s. Jet
(vii) The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Kishor N.
Chemburkar and Ors.10; and (viii)City and Industrial Development Corporation (Maharashtra) Ltd., CIDCO Bhavan Vs. Shri Sharad Dharamraj Savant & Ors.11
9. From the above discussion, observations and findings it is as clear as daylight that appointment of Respondent was on a temporary basis without following the due process of the recruitment procedure and selection as required for appointment as Assistant Law Officer. There is also no denial of the fact that the post of Assistant Law Officer is a post of a Class-I officer in CIDCO. Evidence placed on record shows that it is a duty of the Assistant Law Officer to liaise between various department of CIDCO and CIDCO’s Advocates for completion of legal pleadings; forwarding and recording appropriate documents and instructions; handling legal cases; perusing and correcting legal drafts which would require legal acumen; and all such work is
9 Civil Appeal No.4404 of 2023 dated 25.07.2023 (Supreme Court) 10 WP No.4561 of 2001 dated 11.04.2018 (Bombay High Court) 11 WP No.6554 of 2008 dated 27.04.2017 (Bombay High Court) 18 of 22 undoubtedly of an intellectual calibre and nature. The Industrial Court has considered the nature of duties performed by the Respondent to conclude that the Assistant Law Officer was merely a messenger or a dispatch clerk in the legal department. By analysing the nature of duties of Assistant Law Officer in paragraph No.13 of the impugned judgment, a finding is arrived at by stating that work of Assistant Law Officer is nothing but clerical nature of work. The Industrial Court has concluded that since no person was working under the Respondent, such a post of Assistant Law Officer can be said to be that of a clerk who has some knowledge of legal process and therefore it would be difficult to equate the nature of duty performed by Respondent with that of a person having legal acumen and or a legal profession. However considering the material placed on record the finding arrived at in paragraph No.13 of the impugned judgment is completely contrary to the facts and circumstances in the present case. It has been proven on record that admittedly that there are specific duties of the Assistant Law Officer which cannot be deduced to the post of a clerk and he be considered as a “workman”. This is precisely the reason as to why the recognised Union in CIDCO refused to file a complaint in respect of the Respondent under Section 21 of the MRTU and PULP Act. Respondent has therefore pleaded that the Union has refused to espouse his cause. The post of the Assistant Law Officer in CIDCO envisages minimum eligibility criteria and necessary educational 19 of 22 qualification. One of the most crucial minimum eligibility requirement for appointment as Assistant Law Officer in the open category is having minimum 60% marks in the qualifying examination for consideration for interview. The qualifying examination is of LL.B. In the case of the Respondent he has obtained less than 60% marks in the qualifying examination i.e LL.B, rather Respondent has obtained only 50% marks and has experience of 3.[4] years only. In so far as minimum experienced is concerned, the requirement of experience is of minimum 5 years having standing practice in any Court of law including the High Court. Thus on both counts, Respondent has failed miserably. Therefore in 2014 his candidature was rejected in the recruitment process on the ground of his ineligibility.
10. In the above background, it therefore cannot lie in the mouth of the Respondent to contend that he is a “workman” doing clerical nature of job and therefore covered under the definition of “workman”. When it is seen that the nature of work of Assistant Law Officer is that of an intellectual nature requiring legal acumen, Respondent cannot be considered as a “workman” working on the post of Assistant Law Officer. Respondent is not entitled to any permanency whatsoever in the facts of the present case. Respondent is trying to gain appointment as Assistant Law Officer by fraudulent means when he knows that he does not have the minimum eligibility 20 of 22 requirement for appointment as Assistant Law Officer. Therefore he has created a bogey of being a “workman” and seeks a backdoor entry. He was aware at the time of his initial appointment that he will have no claim or right to be absorbed in the services of CIDCO either on permanent or temporary basis as this was one of the essential condition published in the public advertisement by CIDCO. Despite this, Respondent has made all valiant efforts to gain a backdoor entry without having the requisite eligibility and qualification for being appointed as Assistant Law Officer which is a Class-I Officer post. His grievance that he is a project affected person and therefore eligible for appointment / absorption as Assistant Law Officer is stated to be rejected. A legal Officer is an Officer who is a professional overseeing all legal matters appointed by a proper recruitment process of eligibility, preliminary examination, selection process etc.
11. In view of the above observations and findings, the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2020 is wholly unsustainable. In the peculiar facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the nature of duty and work of Assistant Law Officer in CIDCO is merely clerical in nature.
CIDCO is a Government of Maharashtra public sector undertaking established under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is an important post which requires application of skills and legal knowledge / legal acumen for handling the work of the legal 21 of 22 department. Assistant Law Officer cannot be equated to a “workman” as held by the Industrial Court. The premise of the Respondent that he was appointed in the first instance in the year 2011, after fulfilling all eligibility conditions is false and deserves to be rejected. Merely because Respondent has continued in the service of CIDCO as Assistant Law Officer with intermittent breaks for the past twelve years does not entitle Respondent to claim permanency.
12. In view of the above, impugned judgment dated 10.02.2020 is quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by Respondent is dismissed. It is clarified that, Respondent is not entitled to appointment as Assistant Law Officer in a permanent post as and when the vacancy arises and not entitled to any benefit of permanency as applicable to regular employees (Assistant Law Officers) at all and after the present contractual tenure / term of the Respondent is over, Respondent’s services be dispensed with.
13. With the above directions, Writ Petition is allowed.
14. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, pending Interim Application No.14912 of 2023 is dismissed.
15. Rule is discharged.
16. Writ Petition disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 22 of 22 TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE