The Court dismissed three writ petitions filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order quashing termination of three temporary employees. The Court held the selection process was legal as respondents were selected within the department with input from relevant officials.
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.
( 1 ) wp2060.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2060 OF 2002
WRIT PETITION NO. 2061 OF 2002
WRIT PETITION NO. 2074 OF 2002
* * * * *WRIT PETITION NO. 2060 OF |
2002 |
|
|---|---|---|
The State of MaharashtraThrough The Dy. Director ofSocial Forestry, Jalna. |
.. |
Petitioner |
Versus |
||
Gopal Baliram Mahajan |
.. |
Respondent |
Age. 29 years, Occ. Service,C/o. Social Forestry Range,Partur, Dist. Jalna.WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2061 OF |
2002 |
|
The State of MaharashtraThrough The Dy. Director ofSocial Forestry, Jalna.Versus |
.. |
Petitioner |
Mohan Baliram Mahajan |
.. |
Respondent |
Age. 29 years, Occ. Service,C/o. Social Forestry Range, |
||
Partur, Dist. Jalna. |
( 2 ) wp2060.02
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2074 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra..Petitioner
Through The Dy. Director of
Social Forestry, Jalna.
Versus
Sanjay Vasant Shitole
Age. 29 years, Occ. Service,
C/o. Social Forestry Range,
Partur, Dist. Jalna.
..Respondent
Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, A.G.P. for the petitioner.
Mr. Kalyan Patil h/f. Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for the
respodnents.
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &
V.K. JADHAV,JJ.
DATED :08.01.2015
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] :-
1.Heard. These petitions are filed for challenging
the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal dated 31.08.2001 & 28.08.2001, in the
respective matters, whereby the Tribunal set aside the order
of termination issued by the Government of Maharashtra
against the respondents. The respondents were initially
appointed in March, 1985 as temporary employees. They were
working as Jr. Clerks. The office, thereafter, noticing that
there were vacancies, in 1986 constituted a Selection
Committee for selecting the candidates for filling up posts
( 3 ) wp2060.02
of Clerk. The information regarding this was given to
Employment Exchange as well as Social Welfare Officer. The
names of certain candidates were sent by these two agencies.
The respondents were also given opportunity to appear before
the Selection Committee for interview. In due course, the
respondents were selected. They were given letter of
appointment, but suddenly after few months, they were served
with the impugned letter of termination. The reason why the
respondents were terminated was that their names were not
recommended either by the Social Welfare Department or by the
Employment Exchange.
2.The petitioner tried to justify this action on
their part saying that relying on the brochure issued by the
State of Maharashtra under the Employment Exchange
(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, they were
justified in terminating services of the respondents.
3.On careful perusal of the affidavit, it is seen
that the brochure only laid down that it is compulsory to
notify the vacancies to Employment Exchange. In the present
cases, such information was given to the Employment Exchange
as well as to the Social Welfare Officer. We are told that
Social Welfare Officer and Employment Exchange Officer were
members of Selection Committee.
4.Having regard to these facts, learned Member of the
Tribunal rightly opined that selection and appointment of the
respondents was not against the provisions of any law. The
Tribunal also placed reliance on catena of judgments of the
Supreme Court in which it is held that sponsoring names by
employment cannot be only made for filling up vacancies in
class III & IV category.
5.The Employment Exchange and Social Welfare Officer
are not the exclusive sources through which the appointments
are made. As said above the respondents were working with
the Department since prior to their selection. They were
given opportunity as in-service candidate. We do not find any
illegality in the selection process and appointments of the
respondents.
6.The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Rule
discharged.
snk /2015/JAN14/wp2060.02
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination of respondents' service was illegal given that they were selected through in-service consideration despite their names being sent by the Employment Exchange and Social Welfare
Whether complying with the brochure of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 justified the Govt. in terminating respondents appointed via selection committee.
Whether the Employment Exchange and Social Welfare Officer are the exclusive sources for making appointments.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra Through The Dy. Director of Social Forestry
Gopal Baliram Mahajan
Mohan Baliram Mahajan
Sanjay Vasant Shitole
A.V. NIRGUDE
V.K. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court