Petitioner sought appointment as Clerk following compassion base tenure. Court held that an earlier writ petition pertained to this claim failed to set aside subsequent appointment of another. No relief is granted.
null
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.
WP 6621/15
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6621/2015
Bharat Premchand Chaudhari.
...Petitioner..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri S.P. Brahme, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B.A. Shinde, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Shri M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for respondent nos.4 & 5.
SHri Deepak S. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.6.
.....
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 24.10.2016
ORDER :
1]Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 11.12.2007. His
appointment was also approved. The appointment of the
petitioner was on compassionate ground. In the year
2013, a vacancy arose of the post of Clerk. The
petitioner made representation to consider him for the
post of Clerk as by then the petitioner possessed the
necessary qualification to be appointed as a Clerk. The
same was not considered. However, the respondent no.6
was appointed as a Clerk on 1.6.2013. The learned
counsel submits that the said appointment is illegal. AT
the relevant time, there was ban on recruitment. The
respondent no.6 could not have been appointed. The claim
of the petitioner for being considered for the post of
Clerk is required to be considered. According to the
learned counsel, even the petitioner had filed Writ
Petition No.9652/2014. This Court disposed of the said
writ petition under order dated 30.3.2015 thereby
directing the respondents therein to consider the claim
of the petitioner as per relevant Rules and if the
vacancy is available. The learned counsel submits that
the petitioner had made representation, however, the same
is not considered.
2]Learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 & 5 submits
that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on
compassionate ground. The respondent no.6 is appointed
by following due procedure of law on the available vacant
WP 6621/15
- 3 -
post and the approval is also granted to the appointment
of the respondent no.6.
3]The learned counsel for the respondent no.6 also
submits that by following due selection process, the
respondent no.6 has been selected and the Education
Officer has granted approval to his appointment.
4]We have also heard the learned AGP.
5]The petitioner had filed earlier Writ Petition No.
9652/2014. At that time, the respondent no.6 was already
appointed. This Court in the said writ petition did not
set aside the appointment of the respondent no.6 nor any
directions were given with regards to the appointment of
the respondent no.6. This Court only directed the
respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as
per relevant Rules if the vacancy is available and if the
Rules permit. The challenge to the appointment of the
respondent no.6 if made in the earlier writ petition
stands negatived and if is not made in the earlier writ
petition, now cannot be allowed to challenge.
6]Considering the above, the relief as claimed with
regards to the approval to the appointment of the
respondent no.6 cannot be considered. The order passed
by this Court in the earlier writ petition is self-
explanatory and the same would be considered by the
authorities. Present writ petition is accordingly
disposed of. NO costs.
ndk/ c2410161.doc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim for appointment as Clerk could be considered given a prior writ petition where no directions were issued regarding the then Apprentice's appointment.
Bharat Premchand Chaudhari
The State of Maharashtra
S.V. Gangapurwala
K.L. Wadane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court