Disposed

Santosh Rambhau Jadhav and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Oct 2018WP/2612/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought appointment as freedom fighter nominees in Class III/IV posts based on government policies. The Court, relying on Umadevi, refused to direct direct appointments without selection but ordered the State to consider their application on merits within six weeks if the policy exists.

What did the court decide?

Court refused to direct direct appointment; directed respondents to consider petitioners' case on merits within six weeks if policy exists.

Santosh Rambhau Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

5-WP-2612-12.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2612 OF 2012

¶4

Santosh Rambhau Jadhav and Others ..PETITIONERS VERSUS

¶5

State of Maharashtra and Others

¶6

..RESPONDENTS

¶7

Mr. S.S. Manale, Advocate h/f Mr. S.D. Kaldate, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents.

¶8

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND R.G. AVACHAT, JJ. DATED : 22^nd OCTOBER, 2018

¶9

ORDER :

¶10

The petitioners seek appointment on Class III / Class IV posts as nominees of the freedom fighters.

¶11

Mr. Manale, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the policy of the Government exists for appointing the nominees of the freedom fighters. Government Resolutions dated 10^th January, 1985, 04^th March, 1991, 24^th June, 1997 and 06^th August, 2004 categorically provides for appointment of nominees of the freedom fighters. The petitioners are legitimately nominated by the freedom fighters as their

¶12

1 / 3

¶13

5-WP-2612-12.odt

¶14

nominees for getting employment in Class III and Class IV posts. The learned Counsel submits that it is to take care of the freedom fighter's, such policy has been made. The learned Counsel submits that the respondents have given appointment orders to the similarly situated freedom fighter's nominees without resorting to the selection process on 23^rd July, 2014, 07^th July, 2014, in December, 2015 and in May 2015. In view of that rejecting the applications of the petitioners for direct appointment on Class III and Class IV posts without following the selection process is erroneous and not in conformity with the policy of State of Maharashtra. The Government Resolution of 1991 has not been superseded and it still holds the field.

¶15

The learned A.G.P. submits that the nominees of the freedom fighters have to appear for the examination and compete with the other candidate. Thereafter preference is given to them as provided.

¶16

The Apex Court, in catena of judgments, such as Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 , has held that the State cannot resort to the appointments without following due process of law. It cannot be possible for us to issue directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioners dehors the recruitment process.

¶17

2 / 3

¶18

5-WP-2612-12.odt

¶19

The petitioners have placed on record some orders thereby appointing the freedom fighter's nominees without resorting to the selection process in the year 2014 and 2015 also. Said act of the respondents of appointing the freedom fighter's nominees without selection process would be contrary to their own affidavit in the present matter. We have observed that it would not be possible for us to issue any direction to directly appoint the petitioners as freedom fighter's nominees, however if the policy of the State exists in giving such appointment, the respondents may consider the case of the petitioners on its own merits. The decision in that regard be taken within a period of six weeks from today. Writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶21

SSD

¶22

3 / 3

Santosh Rambhau Jadhav and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Rambhau Jadhav and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Karbhari Manaji Sonawane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Umesh Kalidas Nemade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Raghunath Chabu Gore Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shaila Dattoba Maske and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Omprakash Motilal Varma Vs the Union of India and Others

Maruti Shetiba Bansode, Lrs Shoba and Others Vs State of Maharashtra and Others