Bombay High Court
RENUKA RAMCHANDRA GHONGE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court ordered that the petitioners continue in their current posts and directed the State to consider their absorption/regularisation on a one‑time basis, without mandating automatic regularisation.
Summary
The petitioners, ten BAMS doctors appointed on contractual basis to Group‑A and Group‑B medical officer posts in rural PHCs of Nashik, sought regularisation of their services under Article 226 of the Constitution, invoking a 1981 government resolution reserving 33% of PHC posts for BAMS doctors. The State argued that the contracts were for a fixed term and that the petitioners must compete in regular recruitment processes. The Court noted the long‑standing ad‑hoc appointments, the public interest in staffing rural health centres, and the precedent of one‑time regularisation of MBBS and some BAMS doctors. It held that the petitioners should not be replaced by other contractual appointees and directed the State to consider their absorption on a one‑time basis, after hearing them. The petition and the three interim applications were disposed of without costs.
Issues considered
- Does Article 226 empower the Court to compel regularisation of contractual BAMS doctors serving in PHCs?
- Is the State obligated to regularise BAMS doctors in accordance with the 1981 resolution reserving 33% of PHC posts for them?
- Should interim orders preventing termination of the petitioners' contractual appointments be granted?
- Can the State continue to fill PHC posts on an ad‑hoc contractual basis despite vacancies?
Subjects
- Contractual appointment
- Regularisation
- BAMS doctors
- Public Health Centres
- Article 226
- Rural health services
- Employment law
- Government resolution
Judgment
1 of 9 904.WP.2274.2021.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2274 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3446 OF 2025
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3447 OF 2025
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3448 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2274 OF 2021
1. Dr.Renuka Ramchandra Ghonge, Age 35 years,
R/o.Panchayat Samiti, Tal.Chandvad, Dist.Nashik.
2. Dr.Mangesh Chandrakant Moule, Age 32 years,
R/o.Panchayat Samiti, Tal.Chandvad, Dist.Nashik.
3. Dr.Shilpa Ramesh Girgosavi, Age 32 years,
R/o.Panchayat Samiti, Tal.Peth, Dist.Nashik.
4. Dr.Deveshri Vinay Kumavat, Age 33 years,
R/o.Panchayat Samiti, Tal.Surgana, Dist.Nashik.
5. Dr.Vinay Subhash Kumavat, Age 38 years,
R/o.Panchayat Samiti, Tal.Surgana, Dist.Nashik.
6. Dr.Abhijeet Vasantrao Deshmukh, Age 27 years,
R/o.Panchayat Samiti, Tal.Yeola, Dist.Nashik.
7. Dr.Tushar Ulhasrao Baviskar, Age 38 years,
R/o.Panchayat Samiti, Tal.Yeola, Dist.Nashik.
8. Dr.Nitin Manikrao Jadhav, Age 36 years,
R/o.Panchayat Samiti, Tal.Yeola, Dist.Nashik.
9. Dr.Hanuman Ramchandra Palave, Age 39 years,
R/o.Panchayat Samiti, Tal.Yeola, Dist.Nashik.
10. Dr.Akshay Ramesh Solpure, Age 27 years,
R/o.Panchayat Samiti, Tal.Yeola, Dist.Nashik. Petitioners
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Mumbai.
2. The State of Maharashtra through Secretary,
Department of Rural Development, Mumbai.
3. Director of Health Services, Saint George Hospital
Compound, Mumbai.
4. The Commissioner of Health Services and
Director of NHM.
5. The Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Nashik.
MANISH
Digitally signed
by MANISH
SURESHRAO
6. The District Collector, Nashik.
SURESHRAO THATTE
THATTE Date: 2026.08.18
10:24:06 +0530
7. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nashik.
M.S.Thatte
2 of 9 904.WP.2274.2021.DOC
8. The District Health Officer (DHO),
Zilla Parishad, Nashik. Respondents
_______
Mr.Pramod Kulkarni for Petitioners.
Mr.S.H.Kankal, AGP, with Mrs.R.A.Solanke, AGP, for Respondent-State.
Ms.Bhairavi A.Panpise for Respondent nos.7 and 8.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 6th August 2026
P.C.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
praying for the following substantive reliefs :
“A) The writ petition may kindly be allowed;
B) Nissi record and proceeding may be called for;
C) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the
services of the present petitioners on the post where they are presently working;
D) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners
as per M.B.B.S doctors.
(E-1) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the
impugned order issued by the respondent no.1 dated 6th March 2024;
(E-2) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to 3 to
increase number of posts of BAMS doctors upto 1000 as per the Government
resolution dated 26.05.1981 in the advertisement 1/2024 issued by the
respondents;
(E-3) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to recall the orders
issued to the MBBS doctors at Primary Health Centres as per advertisement
No.1/2024 issued by the respondents.”
2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The Petitioners were appointed some
time in the month of August-2019 i.e. pre Covid-19 pandemic as Group-A Medical
Officers to work at the Public Health Centres (`PHCs’) in rural areas in the Nashik
M.S.Thatte
3 of 9 904.WP.2274.2021.DOC
District, which is under the control of Zilla Parishad, Nashik. The Petitioners
possess qualifications of having a Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine (BAMS). It is
not in dispute that the said appointments were on a contractual basis for a period of
eleven months. However, it is the Petitioners’ case that thereafter they were
continued from time to time.
3. During the pendency of the petition, it is not in dispute that an
advertisement was issued to fill up the posts on contractual basis of Group-B
Medical Officers, in which the Petitioners participated and were selected. As
informed to us by the learned AGP that as on date, the Petitioners are working in
rural areas on such poss as Group-B Medical Officers. It is the Petitioners’
contention that there are posts which are available and always there is a need to
have regular Medical Officers in Group-A and B appointed to man such posts of
Medical Officers in rural areas and more particularly in interior areas where no
medical help is otherwise available. It is therefore Petitioner’s case that they are
catering to the areas which are tribal areas and interior pars of the Nashik District.
4. It is also their case that they have discharged important functions during
Covid-19 pandemic period and they have been continued to discharge their duties
for almost a period of six years, however, on ad-hoc/temporary basis. The plea of
the Petitioners is that the State Government needs to take a policy decision to
absorb the Petitioners. To support such plea, the Petitioners intend to rely on
Government Resolution dated 26 th May 1981 under which a quota of 25% which
is now increased to 33% for BAMS Doctors at every PHC, has been provided for.
On such posts which are supposed to be manned and held by BAMS Doctors, the
M.S.Thatte
4 of 9 904.WP.2274.2021.DOC
State Government cannot appoint MBBS Doctors, is the plea of Petitioners. It is
also their contention that insofar as PHCs are concerned, both the MBBS and
BAMS Doctors are performing similar work and their nature of work is identical. It
is also Petitioners’ contention that there ought not to be a policy of the Zilla
Parishad or in any manner supported by the State Government, on such contract
appointments that they should be replaced by another contract appointments. It is
submitted that, it is high time that the State Government takes a policy decision to
make regular appointments of the Petitioners to discharge their duties on such
posts of Group-A and B Medical Officers for a long period.
5. The Petitioners’ contend that in this regard proposals were forwarded
by the District Health Officer, Nashik and the same are pending consideration. It
is also the Petitioners’ case that by Government Resolution dated 16 th March 2024,
as a one time measure, some Doctors who have put in two years of service, their
services were regularized. Hence, the Petitioners who are similarly placed ought to
have been regularized. As also considering the fact that Ayurvedic Doctors were
already appointed and their services have been absorbed as also MBBS Doctors
who rendered two years of service, were absorbed. It is in such complexion of the
matter, which fall for our consideration.
6. On the other hand, the plea of the State Government as stated by
learned AGP and on behalf of the CEO of Zilla Parishad, Nashik is that the
appointments of the Petitioners were made in 2019 for eleven months on contract
basis, and after expiry of eleven months, the Petitioners were again appointed from
time to time. The Petitioners do not have any legal right as they would be required
M.S.Thatte
5 of 9 904.WP.2274.2021.DOC
to participate in the exercise of regular selection which would be made. It is also
their contention that during pendency of this petition, a fresh advertisement was
issued for filing up the posts of Group-A Medical Officers where the Petitioners
participated and hence the original plea as made in the petition also cannot be
considered. Insofar as Petitioners’ plea in regard to absorption/regularization is
concerned, it is submitted that such plea ought not to be accepted. As and when
process for filing up of the posts of Group-A and B posts is undertaken, the
Petitioners will have liberty to participate in the said process.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the different issues as
urged. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we have perused
the record. We find that there are three Interim Applications which are filed and
prayers in the Interim Applications are required to be noted :
“Interim Application No.3446 of 2025 :
A) The Civil Application may kindly be allowed;
B) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent to not to issue any
appointment orders to other Doctors in place of the present applicants;
C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Civil Application, the Respondents
be directed to not to terminate the services of the present Applicants.
Interim Application No.3447 of 2025 :
A) The Civil Application may kindly be allowed;
B) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent to not to issue any
appointment orders to other Doctors in place of the present applicants;
C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Civil Application, the Respondents
be directed to not to terminate the services of the present Applicants.
Interim Application No.3448 of 2025 :
A) The Civil Application may kindly be allowed;
B) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent to not to issue any
appointment orders to other Doctors in place of the present applicants;
C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Civil Application, the Respondent
be directed to not to terminate the services of the present applicants.”
8. Having given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances
of the case, we are of the clear opinion that there cannot be two opinions that need
M.S.Thatte
6 of 9 904.WP.2274.2021.DOC
for Group-A and B Medical Officers certainly exists to man the PHCs in rural
areas. This is requires urgent attention on the part of State Government as also the
Zilla Parishad. It cannot be that for years together and in the present case since the
year 2019, regular posts although available are not filled. Vide Government
Resolution dated 26th May 1982 quota for BAMS doctors is prescribed and once
such quota is fixed and posts are available and when there is perennial need of the
basic facilities to be made available at the PHCs, it cannot be a situation that such
post are lying vacant or no appointments are made or for that matter contractual
appointments are made. Such method of making ad-hoc appointments insofar as
medical officers are concerned, is counter productive for appropriate
administration of medical services in the rural areas. Thus, it is necessary to have
urgent attention to such subsequent aspects which are of concern for the basic
health requirements of the citizens who reside in the rural areas and more
particularly in the areas under the Zilla Parishad, Nashik large parts of which are
tribal areas, where basic medical services to be made available is paramount. We
thus do not appreciate this regime of ad-hocism.
9. We find that at some juncture the State Government in its wisdom had
found it proper to regularize some of the MBBS Doctors in Group-A as also BAMS
Doctors. However, this was a one time measure. As to why medical officers like
the Petitioners are appointed and who are already serving in the rural areas and
when there is no issue in regard to their discharging duties as if they are regularly
appointed candidates, a policy to absorb their services ought not to be taken and as
a one time measure. If not, at least it would be necessary for the Zilla Parishad as
M.S.Thatte
7 of 9 904.WP.2274.2021.DOC
also the State Government to undertake regular and continuous recruitment of
these posts as and when they fall vacant. Keeping the posts vacant for being filled
up by contractual appointments, is certainly not conducive. It would also not be a
fair approach to continuously appoint medical officers on contract basis. This has a
very serious effect on the system. The effect is that those who are appointed on
contractual appointment are required to be continued for substantial period and on
year to year basis. In accepting such appointments, the contractual medical officers
lose other avenues of employments which otherwise are available to them else
where. It is also likely that some of the appointees appointed from time to time get
age barred. It is also possible that when after long years of ad-hoc/contractual
services and if discontinued, such medical officers may be rendered unemployed.
Thus, any delay in making regular appointments is, in our opinion, something
which is against public interest.
10. Today, certainly the Petitioners are are working although on
ad-hoc/contractual basis on the group-B posts. In such situation, the posts which
are held by the petitioners, although on contract basis, are otherwise available. It is
for such reason we are of the opinion that actual requirement in regard to the PHCs
is required to be ascertained, which would include creating posts including to
consider whether existing contractual posts can be made regular poss, which
require due consideration of the higher authorities. The fact further remains that
the Petitioners who have been appointed on contractual basis or on ad-hoc basis,
cannot be replaced by other contractual medical officers They need to be
continued either by allowing them to participate in the regular selection process or
M.S.Thatte
8 of 9 904.WP.2274.2021.DOC
in the alternative it is open to the State Government to consider whether the
Petitioners can be absorbed in service as one time measure, which would require a
policy decision on the part of the State Government considering long years of
service rendered by the Petitioners on Group-A and B post. Once the Petitioners
were appointed on Group-A posts, which were meant for MBBS Doctors and
thereafter accepted contractual appointments as Group-B officers, certainly there
was no doubt about the eligibility and competence of the Petitioners to undertake
the work which is being discharged in Group-A and B posts. However, strictly it is
not being disputed that the Petitioners being BAMS Doctors are eligible to be
absorbed/regularized on the post of Group-B medical officers. The State
Government needs to take appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible
including on the regularization of the Petitioners. We are inclined to dispose of the
petition in terms of the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Petitioners shall continue to hold the posts as held by them as of
today and they ought not to be replaced by other ad-hoc/contractual appointees;
(ii) The State Government is directed to consider as to whether the
Petitioners can be granted absorption/regularization on any vacant post and as a
one time measure, as was resorted to in the case of MBBS Doctors as also BAMS
Doctors;
(iii) All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open;
M.S.Thatte
9 of 9 904.WP.2274.2021.DOC
(iv) The decision that may be taken by the State Government be passed
after hearing the Petitioners and in the peculiar facts of the case and after granting
to the Petitioners an opportunity of being heard;
(v) The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(vi) The Interim Applications would not survive They also stand disposed
of.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
M.S.Thatte
Checking your session…