Dismissed

Shivraj Kankayya Nagalu v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC24 Jan 2018WP/480/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court rejected a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought selection for the post of Health Worker. The Court held the petition was a nullity due to inordinate delay between the rejection in 2008 and filing in 2016, and because it raised disputed questions of fact.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stands rejected as it is barred by inordinate delay and raises disputed questions of fact.

Shivraj Kankayya Nagalu Vs the State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

480.2016WP.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.480 OF 2016

¶5

Shivraj s/o.Kankayya Nagalu
Age: 35 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Parimal Nivas,
Ganga Putar Colony,
Darga Road, Parbhani

¶6

 PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶9

2. The Joint Director, Health Service [Maleriya], Arogya Bhavan, in front of Vishrantwadi Police Station, Yerwada, Pune.

¶10

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilha Parishad, Parbhani Tq. & Dist. Parbhani

¶11

4. The District Health Officer, Zilha Parishad, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

Mr.V.R.Jain, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, AGP for respondent nos.1
and 2–State

¶14

Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent
nos.3 and 4.

¶15

...

¶16

480.2016WP.odt

¶17

¶18

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶19

 S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

¶20

Reserved on : 15.01.2018
 Pronounced on : 24.01.2018

¶21

ORDER: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

¶22

1]This Petition is filed praying

¶23

therein to direct respondent no.3 to consider

¶24

the petitioner for selection to the post of
Health Worker [Male] from the category of
candidate, who has successfully completed the

¶25

course of Sanitary Inspector from the
Institute recognized by the Government.

¶26

2]It is the case of the petitioner
that, the petitioner passed SSC & HSC

¶27

Examination. The petitioner has completed
degree in Bachelor of Arts. The petitioner

¶28

has requisite qualification as per the
advertisement. The petitioner belongs to Bhoi
community, which comes under NT-B category.

¶29

480.2016WP.odt

¶30

¶31

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbhani, has
issued a caste certificate in favour of the
petitioner. The petitioner has completed
Computer Course, therefore, the M.S.B.T.E.
has been issued certificate in favour of the
petitioner. On 09.08.2003, the petitioner
took admission to the Diploma Course of
Sanitary Inspectors in All India Institute of
Local Self Government, which is situated at
Andheri [West], Mumbai. The petitioner has
been completed his course within 12 months.

¶32

3]It is further the case of the
petitioner that, on 25thApril, 2007,

¶33

respondent no.3 issued an advertisement in
daily newspaper, inviting application for the
post of Health Worker [Male]. It is mentioned
in the said advertisement that, respondent
no.3 would conduct written examination for
the post of Health Worker [Male] on
17.06.2007. On 19.05.2007, the petitioner

¶34

480.2016WP.odt

¶35

¶36

applied for the post of Health Worker [Male]
from the category NT-B. Thereafter, hall-
ticket came to be issued to the petitioner,
and the examination seat number of the
petitioner is 21700059. The petitioner has
appeared for the said written examination,
and he has passed the said examination. On
18.06.2007, respondent called petitioner for
interview. The petitioner appeared before the
respondent for interview along with original
documents.

¶37

4]Learned counsel appearing for the

¶38

petitioner submits that, respondent has not
selected to the petitioner for the post of
Health Worker [Male], therefore, the
petitioner approached the respondent by way
of filing application stating therein that
the State Government has made amendment in
the Health Worker [Male] Group C, in the
Directorate of Health Services [Recruitment]

¶39

480.2016WP.odt

¶40

¶41

Rules, 1997. As per the amendment, proviso is

¶42

inserted that, preference may be given to
those candidates who gained minimum 90 days
experience as a seasonal spraying worker or
successfully completed the course of Sanitary
Inspector from an Institution recognized by
the Government. It is submitted that the
respondenthasnotconsideredthe

¶43

application filed by the petitioner stating
therein that the petitioner successfully
completed Diploma of Sanitary Inspector.
Respondent informed the petitioner by a
letter that, he has no experience certificate

¶44

as a season spraying worker, therefore, the
petitioner is not qualified for the post of
Health Worker [Male]. Therefore, he submits
that, the Petition may be allowed.

¶45

respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel
appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4 jointly

¶46

480.2016WP.odt

¶47

¶48

submit that, the Writ Petition is filed
belatedly after the impugned communication,
by respondent no.4 to the petitioner,
communicating to him that the petitioner at
the relevant time, had no experience
certificate of 90 days in participating in a
programme to eradicate malaria. A candidates,

¶49

who are having certificate of 90 days
experience in participating the said
programme at the relevant time, their claims
have been favourably considered, and they are
selected.

¶50

6]We have given careful consideration

¶51

to the rival submissions of the learned

¶52

counsel appearing for the respective parties.
With their able assistance, we have perused

¶53

the pleadings and grounds taken in the
Petition, annexures thereto and also the
contents of letter dated 18th June, 2008
written by the District Health Officer,
Parbhani, District Parbhani, addressed to the

¶54

480.2016WP.odt

¶55

¶56

petitioner. We find considerable force in the
submission of the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents that, there is inordinate
delay in filing this Petition, inasmuch as,
the petitioner’s request to select him for
the post of Health Worker [Male] has been
turned down in the year 2008, and belatedly
the Petition has been filed in the year 2016.
On this ground alone, the Petition deserves
to be dismissed.

¶57

7]Apart from delay in filing the
Petition, the Petition raises disputed
questions of facts, and therefore, it is not
desirable to entertain the Petition. Hence
the Writ Petition stands rejected.

¶58

8]However, we make it clear that, the
rejection of this Petition shall not be
construed as an impediment to the petitioner
to apply for the said post in future, if the
respondents advertise such posts and the

¶59

480.2016WP.odt

¶60

¶61

petitionerfulfillstheeducational
qualification and other eligible criteria
including age limit.

¶62

 [S.M.GAVHANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶63

DDC

Shivraj Kankayya Nagalu v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivraj Kankayya Nagalu v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Devendra Tukaram Katke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Madhukar Kale and Others Vs Anuja Kalyan Gore and Others

Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha Kolhapur through the Secretary and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

World All Sports Games through Its Secretary Lovekumar Kaduba Jadhav Vs the General Secretary Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs Government of India New Delhi and Anothe

Dudhate Mandap Decoration through Its Proprietor S M Dudhate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Avinash Balaji Ghodke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others