Dismissed

Sudhakar Sanduji Gandhile v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through the Chief Executive Officer Mumbai

Bombay HC10 Dec 2018WP/260/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his appointment as Surveyor and sought reclassification to Junior Engineer from 1991. The court held that since the claim was negatively decided in 1995, further representation在此期间 cannot inure to his benefit, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the petitioner; Writ Petition disposed of without costs.

Sudhakar Sanduji Gandhile Vs Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

9-wp.260-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.260 OF 2016

¶4

Sudhakar s/o. Sanduji Gandhile

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Mr.S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner

¶10

Mr.S.S.Dande, Advocate for respondent

¶11

 CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
 DATE : DECEMBER 10, 2018

¶12

PER COURT

¶13

Heard Mr.Barlinge, learned Counsel for the

¶14

petitioner and Mr.Dande, learned Counsel for the
respondent.

¶15

2.Mr.Barlinge, learned Counsel for the

¶16

petitioner, submits that the petitioner had applied

¶17

from N.T. (C) category and was appointed in the service

¶18

of M.I.D.C. as a Surveyor on 06.02.1991. At present,

¶19

the petitioner is working as Deputy Engineer. The

¶20

learned Counsel submits that after joining the
service in M.I.D.C. as Surveyor, the petitioner filed
a number of representations to the respondent and
contended that since he passed Diploma in the First
Division, as per the policy of the M.I.D.C., the
petitioner's appointment may be considered as Junior
Engineer from the year 1991. Learned Counsel submits
that time and again, the petitioner has reiterated

¶21

his grievance. But, was of no use. On 03.03.1995, a
Circular was issued that the incumbents, who acquired
the degree qualification while in service, would be
considered for the post commensurate to their
qualification and benefit of 3/8th of the earlier
service rendered as Assistant Engineer, would be
counted for the purpose of counting seniority.
Learned Counsel submits that though the petitioner

¶22

was entitled to be appointed as Junior Engineer on
06.02.1991, the respondent considered the petitioner

¶23

3 9-wp.260-16

¶24

as Junior Engineer with effect from 02.02.1995.
Learned Counsel submits that the representations of
the petitioner were not considered by the respondent.
Therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court
by filing Writ Petition No.5720 of 2015. This Court,
by order dated 09.06.2015, had directed the
respondent to decide the representation of the
petitioner. However, on erroneous ground, the
representation came to be rejected. He submits that
the other persons who were similarly situated, have
been directly appointed as Junior Engineer. Learned
Counsel, to substantiate his submissions, refers to
the appointment of one Mr.Deore and submits that said
Deore was interviewed as a Diploma Holder and
appointed as Junior Engineer in 1994. He submits that
the petitioner has been discriminated.

¶25

3.Mr.Dande,learnedCounselforthe

¶26

respondent, submits that the petitioner was appointed
as Surveyor pursuant to the advertisement issued by
the respondent. At that time, no advertisement was

¶27

4 9-wp.260-16

¶28

issued for the post of Junior Engineer. The said
Shri.Deore was appointed in the year 1994 as Junior
Engineer, as his name was sent by the office of
Employment Exchange and as he was possessing the
degree. He submits that three other persons, who were
appointed as Junior Engineers, were sent by the Staff
Selection Commission.

¶29

4.It appears that the claim of the petitioner
that he ought to have been appointed as Junior
Engineer from the date of his initial appointment
i.e. 06.02.1991, has been negatived by the respondent
way back in May, 1995. Subsequently, the said claim
was reiterated again by filing representations.

¶30

5.The petitioner, indisputably, was appointed
on 06.02.1991 as Surveyor, pursuant to the
advertisement issued by the respondent. It appears
that in the year 1993, to fill-in the posts of Junior
Engineers, names of the candidates were called from
the office of Employment Exchange and then, the

¶31

candidate possessing diploma, were appointed to the
posts of Junior Engineers on 01.02.1994 and after
completing the service of five years as Junior
Engineers, they were appointed as Assistant
Engineers.

¶32

6.The question before us would be about the
mode of appointment of the petitioner. As observed
above, the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the
advertisement issued by the respondent for the post
of Surveyor. The post of Junior Engineer was not
advertised at that time. The said Shri.Deore was
appointed in the year 1994 as Junior Engineer on the
basis of the names received from the office of
Employment Exchange. Of course, the respondent could
have considered the name of the petitioner also at
the relevant time for the post of Junior Engineer.
However, it appears that, the names were called from
the office of Employment Exchange and from those

¶33

names, the persons were appointed as Junior
Engineers. In the year 1993, no advertisement was

¶34

6 9-wp.260-16

¶35

issued for the post of Junior Engineer. The claim of
the petitioner was already rejected in the year 1995.

¶36

Had the petitioner, approached this Court
immediately, his grievance could have been
considered. Upon negation of the claim of the
petitioner in 1995, further representation would not

¶37

inure to the benefit of the petitioner.

¶38

7.In view of the above, no relief can be

¶39

granted to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is
disposed of. No costs.

¶40

kbp

Sudhakar Sanduji Gandhile v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through the Chief Executive Officer Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Sanduji Gandhile v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through the Chief Executive Officer Mumbai

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

Vinod Ninu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kedarnath Dwarkadas Mantri Vs Municipal Council , Ambad

Addl Registrar High Court Abad Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Kashinath Piraji Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammad Junaid Shaikh Usman Pinjari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nandkishor Damodar Upasani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others