http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DR. KISHORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The petitioner  was appointed  on temporary   basis  de hors the  rules as  Medical Officer  in Class  III   post on February 28,  1990 for  a period of three months  And it was extended from time to time. Apprehending  termination of his service he filed Writ Petition  No.2661/90 in the High Court of Bombay  at Nagpur  The   High Court  had transferred  the matter to  the  Administrative Tribunal. In T.A. No.3559/92, the   Tribunal by  order dated  September 15,  1993 directed that the  petitioner may  be allowed  to continue until  the duty  selected   candidates  by   the  Selection   Board  or Maharashtra Public  Service Commission  were  available  and appointed, his  continuance in  service was  only on  ad hoc basis  without   confirment  of   any  right  including  the requirement of  notice before  terminating the  service;  at best, he would be entitled to be considered along with other candidates and  as soon  as the  duly selected  candidate is appointed, his  service was  liable to  be  terminated  even without notice. By proceedings dated January 4, 1994 one Dr. S.S. Solanki, Medical Officer, Class III who was selected by the Public  Service Commission was posted by transfer at his request in  place of  the  petitioner.  The  petitioner  has challenged the  order of termination in OA No.400/95 and the Tribunal  in   the  impugned  order  dated  April  12,  1996 dismissed the petition. Thus, these special leave petitions.      It is  contended by  learned counsel for the petitioner that  since   vacancies  are  existing  the  appointment  of Dr.Solanki by  transfer could  not be  used as  a  means  to terminate  the   service  of  the  petitioner.  We  fail  to appreciate the  contention.  It  is  fairly  agreed  by  the learned counsel that the petitioner has no right to the post and as  soon as  a duly  selected candidate is posted in his place, he  has to give place to the duly selected candidate. But his  contention is  that since  Dr. Solanki was selected earlier to  the order  passed by  the Tribunal  and had been appointed on  his transfer,  it cannot be used as a means to terminate the  services of  the petitioner.  His  contention absolutely has  no force.  As  soon  as  the  duly  selected candidate  is   posted,  whether   directly   by   transfer, necessarily the  petitioner has  to give  place  to  such  3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

candidate.  The   petitions,   therefore,   do   not   merit interference.      The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.