Quashed

Satish Shahaji Fand v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Sept 2012WP/5359/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad quashed an order terminating a Zilla Parishad employee appointed on compassionate grounds. The court held that the general Government Resolution regarding typing exams was not applicable to the petitioner without a specific order, and directed reinstatement pending the outcome of an exam.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner reinstated in service subject to the outcome of the July 2012 typing examination.

Satish Shahaji Fand Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP NO.5359/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5359 OF 2012

¶5

Date of decision: 25/9/2012

¶6

For approval and signature

¶7

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH H.PATIL

¶8

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.B.CHAUDHARI

¶9

1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?	Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment ?	No.
4. Whether this case involves a substantial? question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ?	No.
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judges ?	No.
6. Whether the case involves an important question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ?	No
Private Secretary AGP/5359-12wp

¶10

WP NO.5359/2012

¶11

¶12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO.5359 OF 2012

¶14

Satish s/o Shahaji Fand,
Age 40 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Ter, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad.

¶15

...PETITIONER

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development and Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

¶18

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶19

3. The District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

...

¶22

Mr. Sanjay A.Wakure, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶23

Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent State.

¶24

Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Respondent no.3 served.

¶25

...

¶26

CORAM: NARESH H.PATIL
AND

¶27

 A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ.

¶28

 DATE :25/9/2012
***

¶29

3 WP NO.5359/2012

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT: ( Per Naresh H.Patil, J.)

¶31

1. Heard.

¶32

2. Rule.

¶33

Rule is made returnable and heard
forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel
for the respective parties.

¶34

3.Petitioner is a Class-III employee,
serving in Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. It is
submitted that, initially, he was appointed on
a Class-IV post on compassionate ground. By
communication dated 20th June, 2012 (Exh.E,
Page No.18), issued by the Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.

¶35

Petitioner's services were terminated on
account of his failure to pass Marathi and
English typing examinations.

¶36

4.The respondents have placed reliance
on Government Resolution dated 6.12.2010
(Exh.B). Respondent Zilla Parishad has filed
affidavit in reply. Learned Counsel for Zilla
Parishad submits that, placing reliance on the
said Government Resolution, petitioner's
services are terminated. It was further
submitted that the petitioner appeared for the

¶37

4 WP NO.5359/2012

¶38

examination which was to be conducted in the
month of May, 2012. Petitioner was appointed
on 30th July, 2011, but the examination
scheduled to be conducted in May, 2012, was
cancelled, under the orders passed by the
authorities concerned. Therefore, petitioner
has, again, appeared for the examination
conducted in the month of July, 2012.

¶39

5.In the peculiar facts of the case, we
find that the petitioner cannot be held
responsible for non compliance of the
condition. Respondents have not placed any
other Government Resolution on record, which
is made applicable to the employees of the
Zilla Parishad. The Government Resolution
dated 6th December, 2010, specifies that the
condition to pass typing examination within
six months period is not applicable to the
employees of the Zilla Parishad. For making
it applicable, a separate order could be
issued by the concerned Department. Learned
Counsel for respondent Zilla Parishad submits
that such an order does exist, which is made
applicable to the Zilla Parishad employees.

¶40

6.In the facts of the case, we find
that the order of termination issued against

¶41

5 WP NO.5359/2012

¶42

the petitioner is not sustainable. The
impugned order of termination (Exh.E, Page No.
18), is quashed and set aside.

¶43

Respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitionerinservice.Petitioner's
continuance in service is subject to outcome
of his performance in the examination, which
was to be conducted in July, 2012.

¶44

In case petitioner fails in the said
examination, the respondent authorities are at
liberty to take appropriate action in
accordance with law. In case petitioner
suffers any adverse order, the petitioner is
entitled to raise appropriate challenge.

¶45

Rule made absolute in above terms.
No order as to costs.

¶46

(A.B.CHAUDHARI, J.) (NARESH H.PATIL, J.)

¶47

...

¶48

AGP/5359-12wp

Satish Shahaji Fand v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Shahaji Fand v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Namdeo Wani and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Indus Towers Limited Pune and Ors. Vs the Commissioner Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation Nanded and Anr.

Vaibhav Vivek Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bharat J Patel Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Baburao Shantappa Birajdar and Anr. Vs Sadanand Koche, Collector and Anr.

Virendra Ambadasrao Dudhgaonkar Vs the Parbhani City Municipal Corp. and Ors.