Bombay High Court
DEEPAK TUKARAM HOLSAMUDREversusTHE SECRETARY KAI BAPUSAHEB PATIL EKAMBEKAR SEVABHAVI SANSTHA UDGIR AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- ABHAY MANTRI
Holding
The petitioner is not entitled to regularisation of service because he lacked the requisite qualification at the time of appointment and failed to produce any appointment orders after acquiring the M.Phil. degree.
Summary
The petitioner challenged a College Tribunal order dismissing his appeal for regularisation of service as a Lecturer in Sociology, arguing that long service entitled him to regularisation. The court examined the appointment orders dated 2001 and 2008, noting that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary, clock‑hour basis and did not possess the required M.Phil. degree at the time of those appointments. The petitioner only obtained the M.Phil. in June 2009, after the last relevant appointment order, and failed to produce any appointment orders showing continued service thereafter. The court held that without proof of post‑qualification appointment, the petitioner could not claim regularisation. Consequently, the tribunal’s dismissal was deemed well‑reasoned and the writ petition was dismissed as bereft of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularisation of service despite not holding the requisite M.Phil. degree at the time of his appointment.
- Whether the College Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal for regularisation.
- Whether the petitioner produced sufficient evidence of continuous appointment after acquiring the required qualification.
Subjects
- regularisation
- appointment qualification
- M.Phil. degree
- temporary appointment
- clock hour basis
- writ petition
- college tribunal
- service regularisation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:31608-DB
16.WP.10706.2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10706 OF 2018
Deepak Tukaram Holsamudre,
Age : 44 Years, Occu : Nil,
R/o. Udgir, Ta. Udgir,
Dist. Latur ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Secretary,
Kai. Bapusaheb Patil Ekambekar,
Sevabhavi Sanstha, Udgir,
Ta. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
2. The Principal,
Bapusaheb Patil Ekambekar
Maha Vidyalaya, Udgir,
Ta. Udgir, Dist. Latur,
3. Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
University, Tq. and Dist. Nanded.
Through Registrar.
4. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Latur Regiion, Latur, Dist. Latur.
5. Surekha Vaijinath Dagde,
Age : 36 Years, Occu : Service,
R/o. Kai Bapusaheb Patil Ekambekar,
Sevabhavi Sanstha, Udgir, Dist. Latur ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9892 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10706 OF 2018
***
Mr. S. R. Kolhare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ameya N. Sabnis, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. S. G. Sangle, Addl. GP for Respondent – State.
Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
***
Shrikant Malani Page 1 of 5
16.WP.10706.2018.odt
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : JULY 27, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioner assails the judgment and order dated 02nd March
2017 passed by the learned College Tribunal in Appeal No.02 of 2016,
whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner,
holding that the Petitioner had not acquired any right to regularisation in
service merely on the ground that he had been working for a long time.
Hence, the present Writ Petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the Writ
Petition, the Civil Application, the documents annexed thereto, the Affidavit-
in-Reply filed by the Respondents, and the Additional Affidavit-in-Reply
filed by the Petitioner.
4. At the outset, it appears that based on the appointment order
dated 16th July 2001 and the subsequent order of confirmation dated 29 th June
2008, the Petitioner is claiming the benefit of regularisation of his service on
the post of Lecturer in Sociology. However, the Petitioner failed to
demonstrate that on the date of issuance of the first appointment order or the
order of confirmation in 2008, he had acquired the required M.Phil. Degree.
Shrikant Malani Page 2 of 5
16.WP.10706.2018.odt
On the contrary, it appears that, as per his own contentions, he acquired the
M.Phil. Degree on 19th June 2009. On this ground alone, the Petitioner is not
entitled to claim regularisation, as at the time of his appointment, he did not
possess the requisite qualification.
5. Apart from that, on perusal of the order dated 16th July 2001, it
appears that “the Petitioner was appointed on a temporary and Clock Hour
basis”, and his appointment was continued by issuing subsequent orders till
April 2008. The last appointment order relied upon by him is for the period
from June 2008 to April 2009, which was before he possessed the M.Phil.
Degree. He failed to point out that after acquiring the M.Phil. Degree, any
appointment order was issued in his favour to claim a right to regularisation
of his services, despite this Court granting various opportunities to him.
6. Besides, the Petitioner has failed to produce any appointment
order before the Tribunal subsequent to the academic year 2004-05 and,
therefore, the Tribunal, in paragraph No.14, observed that the Petitioner had
not placed on record nor called for any document showing his appointment to
the post of Lecturer in the said College from the year 2004-05 onwards. The
Approval granted by the University showed that approval was granted on a
clock hours basis. The Petitioner has not placed on record that his services
were continued after June 2009 or that approval was granted by the
Shrikant Malani Page 3 of 5
16.WP.10706.2018.odt
University thereafter. Similarly, at the time of filing of the Writ Petition, he
did not produce any appointment order after 2005. However, subsequently,
by filing the Civil Application on 05 th June 2022, he sought permission to
produce the subsequent appointment orders before this Court, which was
strongly disputed and resisted by the learned counsel for the Respondents.
7. Had it been a fact that, according to the Petitioner, he was in
service and appointment orders were issued continuously in his favour, he
would have been aware of the same. He would have had copies thereof.
However, the non-production of the said copies leads this Court to draw an
adverse inference against him regarding their issuance. Therefore, in my
view, though the exemption was granted by the University, as alleged by the
Petitioner, by communication dated 15th April 2009, the Petitioner failed to
point out that he was in service after obtaining the exemption order or that
any appointment order was issued in his favour thereafter. Thus, the
Petitioner failed to point out that after acquiring the M.Phil. Degree, any
appointment order was issued in his favour or that he was appointed as a
Lecturer in Sociology or the University granted Approval to his appointment
at any time. In the absence of the same, in my view, the Petitioner is not
entitled to claim regularisation of his services.
8. Furthermore, upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order,
the Petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or perversity therein. On
Shrikant Malani Page 4 of 5
16.WP.10706.2018.odt
the contrary, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is well-reasoned and,
therefore, no interference is warranted therewith in exercise of the writ
jurisdiction.
9. That being so, the Writ Petition, being bereft of merits, stands
dismissed. No order as to costs.
10. Pending Civil Application, if any, also stands disposed of.
11. Rule is discharged.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Shrikant Malani Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…