Dr. Kishore v. State Of Maharashtra And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis dehors the rules as a Medical Officer (Class III) on 28-2-1990 for three months, with extensions granted from time to time. Apprehending termination, he filed Writ Petition No. 2661 of 1990 in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, which transferred the matter to the Administrative Tribunal.

In TA No. 3559 of 1992, by order dated 15-9-1993, the Tribunal directed that the petitioner could continue only on an ad hoc basis until duly selected candidates of the Selection Board or the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) became available and were appointed. The Tribunal clarified that such continuance conferred no right, not even to notice before termination; at best, the petitioner was entitled to consideration with other candidates, and upon appointment of a duly selected candidate, his service would be liable to termination even without notice.

By proceedings dated 4-1-1994, Dr. S.S. Solanki, a Class III Medical Officer selected by the Public Service Commission, was posted by transfer at his request in the petitioner’s place. The petitioner challenged his termination in OA No. 400 of 1995, which the Tribunal dismissed by order dated 12-4-1996. The present special leave petitions followed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the posting by transfer of a duly selected candidate (Dr. S.S. Solanki) could lawfully displace the petitioner, an ad hoc appointee, notwithstanding the existence of vacancies and the Tribunal’s earlier conditional continuance order.
2. Whether the fact that Dr. Solanki had been selected prior to the Tribunal’s order dated 15-9-1993 affected the validity of using his posting to terminate the petitioner’s ad hoc appointment.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• Because vacancies existed, the appointment of Dr. Solanki by transfer should not be used as a means to terminate the petitioner’s service.
• Since Dr. Solanki was selected before the Tribunal’s 15-9-1993 order, his transfer posting could not be relied upon to terminate the petitioner.
• Conceded that the petitioner had no right to the post and would have to give way when a duly selected candidate was posted.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court rejected the petitioner’s contentions, noting the concession that the petitioner had no right to the post and must yield once a duly selected candidate is posted. It reiterated the clear condition from the Tribunal’s earlier order: the petitioner’s continuance was strictly ad hoc and terminable upon the appointment of a duly selected candidate, without any right to notice.

Addressing the specific objections, the court held that the existence of vacancies does not insulate an ad hoc appointee from displacement by a duly selected candidate. Further, the timing and mode of the selected candidate’s posting are immaterial: whether the duly selected candidate is posted directly or by transfer, the ad hoc appointee must make way. The argument that Dr. Solanki’s earlier selection date relative to the Tribunal’s order barred reliance on his transfer to effect termination was found to have “absolutely no force.”

On this basis, the court concluded that the petitions warranted no interference.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED — The special leave petitions were dismissed.

Implications: The petitioner’s termination stands, and the duly selected candidate (Dr. S.S. Solanki) is entitled to occupy the post, whether posted directly or by transfer. The decision applies the Tribunal’s earlier conditional continuance framework and has a direct effect on the parties; it does not set out any new legal precedent beyond affirming that ad hoc/temporary appointments confer no right to continue once a duly selected candidate is posted.