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 2026:BHC-AUG:31608-DB 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 29th 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 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 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 05th 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 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