Remanded

Deepak Uttamrao Shejwal v. the Principal Secretary and Others

Bombay HC8 Dec 2016WP/7008/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad restrained the Municipal Council from appointing the petitioner to other posts, directing them to consider his grievance regarding the vacant post of Sub-Overseer and illegal occupants.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Respondent-Municipal Council to consider the petitioner's case for appointment to the post of Sub-Overseer or such other post as he would be qualified for when a vacancy arises.

Deepak Uttamrao Shejwal Vs the Principal… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP 7008/15

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.7008/2015

¶6

Deepak Uttamrao Shejwal.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Department & others.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri K.M. Nagarkar , Advocate for petitioner.
Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Shri Ajinkya P. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.4.
None present for respondent nos.5 to 10.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 08.12.2016

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]Mr.Nagarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶17

submits that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed

¶18

to the post of Sub-Overseer. In fact, since 1996, the

¶19

post of Sub-Overseer was vacant. However, the case of

¶20

the petitioner was not considered. The learned counsel

¶21

submits that the petitioner had approached the Industrial

¶22

Court also, however, the facts were not properly

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

represented by the respondent for extraneous reasons.
The details are given int he petition as to how the
respondent nos.5 to 10 have committed illegalities though
they are not entitled to occupy the posts they are
occupying, still by illegal acts, though they are not
qualified, they are occupying the said posts. The

¶25

learned counsel submits that the petitioner has made
representation with various authorities. The same is
also not considered.

¶26

2]The learned counsel for the respondent – Municipal
Council submits that the petitioner is appointed as a
Peon under the orders of the Court and the petitioner has
accepted the said appointment. Since 2005, there is no
post of Sub-Overseer vacant.

¶27

3]We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶28

4]The petitioner had earlier approached the Industrial
Court. The order of the Industrial Court was assailed

¶29

before this Court in Writ Petition No.4195/2004. The

¶30

learned Single Judge of this Court on 12.12.2003 passed
an order accepting the statement of the learned counsel

¶31

for the present petitioner to the effect that the

¶32

WP 7008/15

¶33

- 3 -

¶34

petitioner has given up the claim for the post of
Draftsman for the present and accepts the post of Peon
and upon the joint request of learned counsel for both
the parties, the said writ petition was disposed of.

¶35

5]In view of the said statement, it would not be

¶36

possible to revert back to the position prior to
12.12.2003.

¶37

6]The respondent – Municipal Council shall consider

¶38

the cause of the petitioner and the grievance of the
petitioner made in the representation with regard to the
facts on and after 12.12.2003. It would also consider

¶39

the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of
Sub-Overseer or such other post as the petitioner would

¶40

be qualified as and when the vacancy arises of the said
post.

¶41

7]Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶42

ndk/ c81216.doc

Deepak Uttamrao Shejwal v. the Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Uttamrao Shejwal v. the Principal Secretary 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

Karbhari Jaywantrao Tribhuwan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Babasaheb Thakaji Khaladkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Digambar Chandrabhan Aagre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nandlal Gangaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sanjay Dhondu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mamta Pandurang Nimje Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others