Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reply
Reply
Vs
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ) ……….............. Respondents
Bazar, Mumbai – 400 009, the Defendant No. 54 herein and Power
they are discharging diligently their duties for past four years.
They have completed their probation period and they have been
herein were not shortlisted for interviews and they still want to
laid down therein, that they could not be entitled to question the
the criteria for selection process and they had accepted the said
parameters, by applying for the said post, after reading the said
the 100% cost was borne by the Central Government and later
the cost was divided between the Central Government and State
process for the post of Dental Surgeons was not followed while
on contractual basis and they cannot claim any right on the post
that some of the NHM Dental Surgeons, who had applied for
process.
10.4.2006).
for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and
whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the
services.
……..
11. ……. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who
have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date
regularization. ……”
The copy of the said judgment reported in (2010) 9 SCC 252 is
hence they are not eligible for regularization, at the cost of the
Respondents herein.
on the Government.
shall not be entitled for separate T.A. and D.A. during the
contract period….
2. ….......
3. …......
4. …........
recommendations.
Government.”
15. The above terms of the agreement further reiterate the stand
months but were renewed twice and after serving the maximum
precluded from applying for the said posts afresh subject to the
16. The High Court did not keep in view the various clauses in
contractual basis, the tribunal and the High Court ought not to
for the post, along with the NRHM candidates. Some of the
1. Dhiraj Bhende
3. Namita Belekar
4. Pravin Ingale
5. Mangesh Gujar
7. Varsha Suryawavshi
Other NRHM candidates filed the Original Applications Nos.
777 were dismissed. They concealed the said fact from the
exams was getting a degree and they are registered with Dental
under:
etc. Vs. Dilip Kumar & anr. Etc. [reported in 1993 SCC (2)
the legal position settled earlier by the High Court with which
the Tribunal.”
(i) …….
(iii) …….”
law.
the post the Respondents herein left their private practice and/or
marked as Exhibit 7.
16.Further it is submitted that this is not the first time when private
“27. ………
260……..
held as under:
the Tribunal or the High Court or even before this Court, has
Select List.
28. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the DPC enjoyed
follows:
“We may also observe that, citing the said judgment, some of
basis and who are removed after putting in a year’s or two years
the said judgment would not lay the ratio that, the persons who
have followed the laid criteria and procedure for selection. The
said posts of Dental Surgeon they left their private service and
Respondents herein are not continued with the said posts then it
inter alia, agreed that they would neither have any right nor lein
on the post held by them and they would not claim regular
employment, absorption and regularization. Hence, they are not
Respondent No. 54
Advocate for the __________________
________________________________
VERIFICATION
be true.
Identified by me
Before me.
Advocate for Respondent Nos.