Quashed

The State of Mah and Ors. v. Ambadas Shadeo Yedwar and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Nov 2016WP/5700/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Tribunal order regularizing respondents who were age-barred at time of initial appointment. Court held Tribunal erred in regularization and quashed order while directing future employment as work permits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order quashed and set aside; Petitioners directed to issue future employment orders to Respondents as work becomes available.

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Ambadas Shadeo Yedwar and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

4wp5700-07.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

4 WRIT PETITION NO. 5700 OF 2007

¶4

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, (Medical Education & Research), Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶5

2.The Dean,
Bhausaheb Hire Medical College
and Hospital, Dhule
3.The Director,
Medical Education & Research,
Mumbai
4.The Collector, Dhule…Petitioners
VERSUS
1.Ambadas Shadeo Yedwar,
Age: Major, Occu: Nil,
R/o Dhule Chalisgaon Road,
June Naka, Dhule

¶6

2. Nandini Pandurang Shegaonkar, … Respondents Age: Major, Occu: Nil, R/o Behind Manohar Talkies, Dhule

¶7

Mrs. M. A. Deshande, Addl. G.P. for the petitioners
Mr. A. D. Sugdare, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.

¶8

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
 DATE:28th November, 2016

¶9

JUDGMENT:

¶10

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2. The judgment delivered by the Maharashtra

¶12

1/4

¶13

Administrative Tribunal is assailed in the present Writ
Petition.

¶14

3. Mrs. Deshpande, the learned Addl. G.P. for the
petitioners submits that the Tribunal has failed to
consider the Government policy and the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of A. Umarani Vs. Registrar,

¶15

reported in AIR 2004 SC 450, wherein, the Apex Court
has specifically directed that the persons whose
appointments are without following due procedure of law
are not entitled for regularization in service. The
learned Addl. G.P. submits that a Circular has been

¶16

issued on 25th August, 2005 by the Government thereby
directing not to regularize illegal appointments. The
learned Addl. G.P. further submits that on the date
when the respondents were appointed for the first time

¶17

i.e. on 6th February, 2002, they were age barred.
respondent No.1 was 34 years of age and respondent No.2
was 33 years of age. The respondents could not have

¶18

been indicted in service as, on the date of their
appointment on temporary basis, they were over aged.

¶19

4. Mr. Sugdare, the learned counsel for the

¶20

respondents submits that in fact the order impugned in
the present writ petition is based on the order dated

¶21

2/4

¶22

4wp5700-07.odt

¶23

18th October, 2004 in Original Application No. 235/2003
and Misc. Application No. 158/2005. Under the said
order, the present respondents were duty bound to
maintain the seniority lists in Part-I and Part-II. In
the IInd seniority list, the respondents are at Serial
Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners had appointed five
persons on compassionate ground without following the

¶24

seniority list as directed by the Tribunal. As the
other persons were appointed, the respondents moved the
Tribunal and the Tribunal has rightly considered the
earlier order passed. No illegality has been committed
by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order.

¶25

5. We have considered the submissions.

¶26

6. We could have considered the case of the present

¶27

respondents, had, at the time of their initial
appointment, they would have been eligible to be
appointed. The respondents herein had crossed the upper
age limit at the time of their initial appointment. The
same is not disputed. Had the present respondents being

¶28

eligible to be appointed initially itself, then in that
case, the respondents could seek regularization. It is
submitted by the petitioners that those five persons
who were appointed, were belonging to backward classes

¶29

3/4

¶30

and were appointed on compassionate ground as per the
roster.

¶31

7. As observed, above, we could have considered the
length of services of the respondents and would have
considered their case as per the Lad Committee
recommendations, had the respondents being eligible to
be appointed at the first instance. As the respondents
were not eligible to be appointed at the first
instance/initial dates, the Tribunal ought not have
passed the impugned order. The impugned order is
quashed and set aside.

¶32

8. It would be seen that the respondents are given
work as and when the work is available. There are about
9 vacancies of Safai Kamgar. At present,the respondents

¶33

are allowed to work by issuing orders from time to
time. The petitioners shall issue orders in favour of
the respondents from time to time as per availability
of the work.

¶34

9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall

¶35

be no order as to costs.

¶36

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶37

JPC

¶38

4/4

The State of Mah and Ors. v. Ambadas Shadeo Yedwar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah and Ors. v. Ambadas Shadeo Yedwar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Osmanabad Zilla Samaj Seva Mandal Osmanabad through Its Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahsu Asaram Chavan and Others Vs the Union of India Thr Secretary New Delhi and Others

Subhash Bhausaheb Dube and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Sunita Sitaram Surwase and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sinkukumar Krishnakumar Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Illyas Mamu Mohd Yusuf Lakhara Vs the Union of India and Ors.