Partly allowed

Tatyaba Babasaheb Ghogre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Sept 2013WP/2925/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order appointing a respondent who had not complied with experience registration requirements, directing performance of duty pending a fresh selection process with hearing to both parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.5's services are not disturbed until fresh appropriate orders are passed after hearing both parties within eight weeks.

Tatyaba Babasaheb Ghogre Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 2925 OF 2013

¶3

TATYABA BABASAHEB GHOGRE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶4

... Advocate for Petitioner : Shri S.B.Talekar AGP for Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri S.K.Tambe Advocate for Respondent 4 : Shri S.S.Tope Advocate for Respondent 5 : Shri N.I.Jadhav

¶5

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. Dated: September 25, 2013

¶6

PER COURT :-

¶7

By consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

¶8

The petitioner was earlier selected in terms of advertisement No.1 dated 2.9.2011, issued by the District Selection Committee, Jalna. His selection was questioned by respondent No.5 Vasant by filing Writ Petition No.6025 of 2012. Contention of Vasant, in that petition was that he had secured more marks than the present petitioner. This Court, after hearing respective counsel, has noted the statement made by learned counsel appearing for Zilla Parishad that fresh list was already forwarded to the Collector and the Collector was supposed to pass appropriate order. Accordingly, this Court directed Collector to pass appropriate order expeditiously. This Court did not adjudicate upon the contention that Vasant had secured more marks than the petitioner.

¶9

After this direction, by the impugned order dated 1.2.2013, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad cancelled the selection and appointment of the petitioner and appointed Vasant. That order is questioned in the present Writ Petition

¶10

akl

¶11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶12

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO. 2925 OF 2013

¶14

Learned Advocate Shri Talekar submits that the advertisement expressly stipulated registration of experience with the office of Employment Exchange. Experience, allegedly possessed by respondent No.5 Vasant, was not registered with it and hence he could not have been selected on post reserved for part time employees in horizontal reservation. He contends that after this Court permitted the Collector to pass appropriate orders, the Collector should have extended an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who was already in service and had that been done, the petitioner could have pointed out these facts to the said authority.

¶15

Learned Advocates Shri Tope and Shri Jadhav oppose these contentions. According to them, respondent No.5 has produced a certificate issued by the Tahsildar which shows that his experience as a part time employee is duly taken note of and hence he fulfilled the requirement of advertisement.

¶16

We have perused the certificate issued by the Tahsildar. Said certificate is dated 26.4.1999 and it only mentions the Employment Exchange Registration Number of respondent No.5. This certificate no where shows that experience as such has been registered or recorded with the Employment Exchange authorities. The Tahsildar, admittedly, is not such authority.

¶17

The advertisement, through it's clause No.20, has mandated that part time employees must have entered their experience with the Employment Exchange and enclose documents in support thereof.

¶18

¶19

akl

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO. 2925 OF 2013

¶22

We, therefore, find substance in the contention of learned Advocate Shri Talekar that had the petitioner been given opportunity, he could have pointed out absence of such experience or absence of it's registration with the Employment Exchange authorities. The impugned order is accordingly, found un-sustainable. Same is accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶23

However, in terms of that order, respondent No.5 has already joined the service and is presently working. We, therefore, direct that his services shall not be disturbed until respondent No.3 passes fresh appropriate orders in the matter. We direct respondent No.5 as also the petitioner to appear before respondent No.3 on 11.11.2013 and to abide by it's further instructions in the matter. Said authority shall attempt to find out whether respondent No.5 has complied with clause 20 of the advertisement mentioned supra and in terms thereof take necessary final decision. Said decision shall be taken after hearing the petitioner and respondent No.5 within further period of eight weeks. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 shall issue appointment order in favour of the successful candidate. If there is any other Government Resolution which extends any protection or concession to respondent No.5 or to the petitioner, it is open to them to point out the same to respondent No.3 Collector.

¶24

With liberty to the aggrieved party to raise his grievance, if any, before the competent forum thereafter, we dispose of the present Writ Petition with no order as to costs.

¶25

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

¶26

akl

Tatyaba Babasaheb Ghogre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tatyaba Babasaheb Ghogre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Laxman Khandu Rathod and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Waman Trimbak Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shankar Gangaram Muley-Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others