Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that none of the petitioners had been appointed in accordance with any selection procedure. They had neither been appointed through written test, oral interview, advertisement. Some of them did not have even the prescribed qualifications.

23. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the non- teaching staff of the University are governed by the Standard Code providing for the terms and conditions of service of non-teaching employees prescribed by the State Government of Non-Agricultural Universities in the State of Maharashtra State as prescribed as per section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 2016. Under this Code, all appointments which are not by way of promotion have to be advertised in newspapers and thereafter appointments can be made KVM WP 3831 of 2019.doc after interview. None of the petitioners claim to have any promotional right.

29. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the appointment in this case were made in between 2009 and 2017. The Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 came into effect in the year 2017. Section 8 of the 2016 Act is identical to section 8 of the 1994 Act.

30. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 tenders a Standard Code for non-teaching staff in the year 1994 and relied upon the procedure prescribed under clause (4) for appointment to be made by nomination or by selection shall be by an advertisement. The Selection Committee has to be appointed for recommending the appointment under clause (4) (3) (c) comprising of various persons. No such procedure was followed for the purpose of appointment of the KVM WP 3831 of 2019.doc petitioners to any of the non-teaching post.

50. The Hon'ble Supreme Court adverted to the various earlier judgments and held that as per the settled preposition of law, the KVM WP 3831 of 2019.doc regularization can be only as per the regularization policy declared by the State/Government and nobody can claim the regularization as a matter of right dehors the regularization policy. In the absence of any sanctioned post and considering the fact that the respondents were serving as a contingent paid part-time Safai Karamcharies, even otherwise, they were not entitled for the benefit of regularization under the regularization policy framed by the Government. None of the appointments had been made in compliance with the provisions of Standard Code Procedure.