The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of the respondent no.4 as the petitioner's continued employment from 1980 remained undisturbed.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP1250-12
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1250/2012
(CHAKRADHAR BHIVAJI CHANEKAR VERSUS THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, M.S.P.G.L. KOYANA JAL SANKUL & OTHERS)
Shri R.E. Moharir, counsel for the R-1.
Shri B.M. Lonare, A.G.P. For the R-3.
Shri A. Mardikar h/f Rajnish Vyas, counsel for the R-3 & 4.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 16, 2012 .
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration for cancellation of the appointment of the respondent no.4.
It is the case of the petitioner that the land of the father of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1977 and on the basis of a certificate of the petitioner of being a Project Affected Person, the respondent no.2 appointed the petitioner in service. It is the case of the petitioner that later on, though the petitioner had not nominated the name of the respondent no.4 for securing a certificate of Project Affected Person due to the acquisition of the land of the petitioner's father, the respondent no.4 acquired a certificate of being a Project Affected Person and secured the appointment from the respondent no.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 could not have appointed the respondent no.4 in the year 2008 when the petitioner was already
WP1250-12
2
appointed by the respondent no.1 in the year 1980 on the basis of the certificate of Projected Affected Person.
It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the affidavits-in-reply that the petitioner should not be aggrieved by the appointment of the respondent no.4 as the respondent no.2 has not disturbed the appointment of the petitioner made in the year 1980. Since the petitioner still continues to work on the post on which he was appointed in the year 1980 on the basis of the certificate of Project Affected Person, the petitioner cannot have any grievance if one more person, specially his nephew is appointed by the respondent no.2 in the year 2011. It appears that the respondent no.2 must not have properly verified the facts before appointing the respondent no.3 in the year 2011 on the basis of the certificate of being a Project Affected Person. In any case, the petition cannot be entertained as the petitioner should not be aggrieved by the appointment of the respondent no.4 by the respondent no.2.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Though the writ petition is dismissed, this order will not come in the way of the respondent no.1 in making an enquiry in regard to the validity of the project affected persons certificate of the respondent no.4.
JUDGE
JUDGE
APTE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the respondent no.4 despite not being nominated.
Whether the appellant's appointment in 1980 was disturbed by the appointment made in 2011.
Chakradhar Bhivaji Chanekar
The Chief General Manager, M.S.P.G.L. Koyana Jal Sankul
Respondent No. 4
Vasanti A. Naik
Sunil P. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
