Oral Judgment:

Y.G. Khobragade, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

3. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the respondent to continue her services in the post of Senior Research Assistant (Contract) till completion of three years from the date of her appointment.

4. It is not in dispute that initially on 30/12/2017, the present petitioner was appointed to the post of Senior Research Assistant on consolidated honorarium of Rs.10,000/-per month for the period of three years. After completion of three years, again the petitioner was appointed under appointment order dated 01/04/2021 on the said post for a further period of three years. Thereafter for the first time on 05/08/2024, the respondent flashed out an advertisement for recruitment of various posts on contract basis including the post of Senior Research Assistant for consolidated honorarium of Rs.18,000/- per month for the period of three years. The petitioner submitted her candidature and after completion of selection process, she has been appointed to the post of Senior Research Assistant (Contract) on honorarium of Rs.18,000/- per month in consolidation for a period 11 months on certain conditions though as per the advertisement the respondent ought to have appointed her for the period of 3 years.

5. The petitioner has submitted an application with respondent for extension of her service period which came to an end on 04/08/2025 but the respondent failed to issue reply, hence, by the present petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to permit her to continue on the post of Senior Research Assistant for the period of three years in pursuance of advertisement dated 05/08/2024.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment dated 30/08/2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.11009/2021 (Jayshree Vishwanath Bhale and ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors.).

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent strongly opposed the petition on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was on purely contractual basis as per the advertisement dated 05/08/2024. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Senior Research Assistant for a fixed period of 11 months which has already came to an end and therefore the petitioner cannot be continued in the same post. It is further canvassed that the post of Senior Research Assistant is not a sanctioned post. Therefore the petitioner has no right to seek continuation on the said post after the period of 11 months is over. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that, initially, the petitioner was appointed with the respondent to the post of Senior Research Assistant (Contract) under appointment order dated 30/12/2017 for a period of three years and thereafter her appointment was continued for further three years vide letter dated 01/04/2021. Thereafter for the first time on 05/08/2024 the respondent flashed out an advertisement inviting applications from the candidates to fill up the posts of Senior Research Assistant, Superintendent (Boys Hostel), Superintendent (Girls Hostel), Mechanic ‘C’ (Repairing of A.C./Refrigerator) and Lift Mechanic. In advertisement, the respondent provided the tenure of appointment of the respective post and the consolidated honorarium. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner and other candidates have submitted their candidature and after following the selection process, the respondent issued appointment order dated 29/08/2024 in favour of the petitioner for the post of Senior Research Assistant (Contract) on consolidated honorarium of Rs.18,000/- per month for the period of 11 months.

9. It is to be noted that when the respondent flashed out an advertisement to fill the post of Senior Research Assistant for the period of 3 years, in that circumstances, the respondent could have appointed the candidate as per the advertisement for the period of three years and not below the said period. However, under the appointment order dated 29/08/2024, the respondent appointed the petitioner only for the period of 11 months which appears to be contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement published on 05/08/2024. It is well settled principle of law that, terms and conditions of advertisement are conditions of employment. The period of appointment provided under the advertisement is an agreement between the employer and the employee. Since the respondent published advertisement dated 05/08/2024 and invited applications from the aspiring candidates for the post of Senior Research Assistant for 3 years period, hence, the respondent ought to have appointed the petitioner on said post for the period of 3 years. Hence action on part of the respondent while issuing the appointment order for the period of 11 months is certainly illegal, bad in law as well as contrary to advertisement.

10. In view of above discussion, Rule is made absolute in above terms.

11. The respondent is hereby directed to permit the petitioner to discharge the duties of the post of Senior Research Assistant (Contract) till completion of three years from the date of her appointment under order dated 29/08/2024.

12. The petitioner is directed to furnish undertaking to the respondent that she will not claim continuity in service and regularisation because her appointment is purely on contract basis.

13. In case the respondent publishes fresh advertisement for the post of Senior Research Assistant, in that event, the petitioner will be at liberty to submit her candidature which can be considered on its own merits.

14. Writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.