DEEPAK TUKARAM HOLSAMUDREversusTHE SECRETARY KAI BAPUSAHEB PATIL EKAMBEKAR SEVABHAVI SANSTHA UDGIR AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:31607
                                                                 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