Petition dismissed as petitioner accepted appointment in 2009 after court directed issuance in 2008, precluding retrospective claim for 2006.
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.
2102wp42.12
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.42 OF 2012
(Amol s/o Nivruttirao Gulhane vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri A. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner.
CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR AND P.B. VARALE, JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 21, 2012
The petitioner, who has been appointed
as Multipurpose Health Worker in the year 2009 and who has accepted the appointment order without any grievance, has filed this petition after more than two years with a prayer that he should have been given appointment order in the year 2006 instead of in the year 2009. The petitioner had filed writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 3772/2008 on the ground that even though petitioner also qualified to be appointed in the year 2006 as he was a trained candidate and he was in the waiting list, he
2102wp42.12
2/2
was not given appointment and only those, who filed Writ Petition, were given appointments. The Division Bench allowed that petition on 2/12/2008 and the Zilla Parishad was directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner also. On the basis of the same, the petitioner was given appointment in the year 2009. The petitioner at that time without making any grievance accepted the said appointment and has now filed writ petition after a considerable time on the ground that appointment order should have been given retrospective effect, i.e. from the year 2006.
The petitioner having accepted the appointment order in the year 2009, now cannot make any issue out of the same. No direction can be issued asking the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner from retrospective effect, i.e. from the year 2006. We do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
JUDGE
JUDGE
khj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who accepted an appointment order can now claim retrospective appointment retroactive to an earlier year.
Whether this court can direct issuance of an appointment order with retrospective effect after the petitioner has accepted the appointment.
Amol Gulhane
The State of Maharashtra
P.B. MAJMUDAR
P.B. VARALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
