DR. ARUNDHATI AJIT PARGAONKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 808 · Decided: 31-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, N.P. SINGH

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DR. ARUNDHATI AIIT PARGAONKAR 
v. 
, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 31, 1994 
B 
" 
(R.M. SAHA! AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.I 
Service Law : 
Appointment-Regularisation of temporary appointmenr-C/ass-II post 
C of lecturer in Dmtistl)'-Within the pwview of selection by Public Service 
Commission-:-Candidate appointed ro the permanent post on temporary 
basis-Public Service Commission recommending another candidate for per-
manent appointment-Held : the candidate appointed temporarily though 
working continuously for a number of years not entitled to be regularised. 
D 
The appellant, a Bachelor in Dental Surgery was selected by the 
Divisional Selection Board and was appointed as Lecturer in Dentistry on 
a purely temporary basis in 1978. In 1980 and 1985 the appellant was 
selected by the public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer of 
Dental Mechanics and Periodontia respectively, but she did not join. In 
E 1987 her name was sponsored for po:1t graduation on deputation. But the 
Government did not agree to it sin•ce the qualiflcation for the post of 
Lecturer in dentistry bad changed in the meantime In 1986. 
In March, 1988 the post held by the appellant was advertised 
through Public Service Commission. The appellant filed a Writ Petition 
F 
before the High Court claiming that since she bad rendered nine year 
continuous service she stood regularis<d as per the Government resolution 
dated 19.9.1975. The petition was transferred to the Tribunal which passed 
an interim order In favour of the ap1.ellant but the selection to the post 
was not stayed. Resp"ondent No. 3 was selected but he could not joined in 
G view of the said Interim order. He file1l a petition before the Tribunal. 
Both the petitions were decided! by the Tribunal. The appellant's 
claim was rejected as her appointmeiot was not in accordance with the 
recruitment rules according to which since the said post was a Class_II 
post it had to be filled through the public Service Commission. Hence this 
H appeal. 
808 
.
.. 
AA PARGAONKAR (DR.)v. STATE 
809 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The post oil whkh the appellant was appointed was a 
permanent post. A person appointed temporarily to a permanent post 
cannot be equated with a person appointed ad-hoc. A temporary appointee 
A 
to a permanent post has all the privileges of a regular employee except 
that the appointment becomes permanent only in the manner provided in B 
the rules. Even the tenor of the appointment letter indicates that the 
appellant was 'not to be treated a temporary employee in the sense in which 
it is, normally, understood. It was not a tennrial appointment or an 
appointment till further orders. It was not even said that the appellant was 
being appointed till a regular candidate was selected- However, that by C 
itself could not confer any permanent status on the appellant nor she could 
claim regularisation unless it is established that she became permanent 
under some rule or order or the 1975 Resolution by satisfying the condi-
tions mentioned therein. [812·D·F] 
2. The method of appointment of a lecturer in Dentistry in the D 
Med!. cal College was to be governed by the rules made in 1977. The two 
methods provided are by transfer and by nomination. A person appointed 
by nomination was to be placed on probation for two years. The rules do 
not throw any light on the procedure of nomination. But that does not help 
the appellant as she was not placed on probation. Nor it is claimed by her E 
that she was appointed by nomination. (812-G·H, 813-A] 
3. Since the Government bas been treating the class-II post in 
purview of Public Service Commission and these posts were not included 
in the notification issued on 8th October 1965 by the 'State Government 
the Tribunal did not commit any error in recording finding that the post F 
of Lecturer in Dentistry in the State of Maharashtra even in 1978 was 
within purview of the Public Service Commission. Even otherwise the 
Temporary Government Services Regularisation Rules issued by the 
Government in 1975 should not, in the larger interest, be made applicable 
to those cases where the post specially class-II ·service is in purview of the G 
Public Service Commission. (813-E-F] 
Dr. MA. Haque v. Union of India, (1993] 2 SCC 213, relied on. 
4. Eligibility and continuous working for howsoever long period 
should not be permitted to. over-reach the law. Requirement of rules of H 
810 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [199

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.