Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs Ajinkya Sharad Govekar

(1)

RA-47-2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.47 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.13131 OF 2018

¶4

Zilla Prishad, Ahmednagar

¶5

..Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Ajinkya S/o Sharad Vovekar and State ..Respondents

¶8

Mr. S. T. Shelke, Advocates for the Applicant.
Mr. C. R. Thorat, Senior Advocate for Respondents.

¶9

Closed for Orders on :30.04.2019.

¶10

Order Pronounced on :07.06.2019.

¶11

FINAL ORDER(Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-

¶12

1.The applicant seeks review of the order
dated 17.01.2019 passed by this Court in Writ
Petition 13131 of 2018. This Court while allowing
the writ petition had directed the present review
applicant to place the writ petitioner in the
seniority list of the persons to be appointed on
compassionate ground considering his application to
be complete in all respects on 28.06.2017.

¶13

2.Mr. Shelke, learned counsel for the review
applicant submits that the committee had prepared
the verification sheet on 04.07.2018 and it was
observed that the documents at serial nos.18, 22,
24 and 26 are not submitted. Similarly, the 'P'
Form and Annexure-B do not bear signature of

¶14

(2) RA-47-2019

¶15

competent authority. The documents at serial
nos.13 to 16 are not verified before the Executive
Magistrate. The learned counsel relies on the
circular dated 05.02.2010 and submits that the
instructions are issued for preparation of the
waiting list. It is specifically instructed that,
unless and until all documents are supplied by the
applicant, his name should not be included in the
waiting list of the persons to be considered for
appointment on compassionate ground.

¶16

3.Mr. Shelke, learned counsel further
submits that pursuant to the said Government
Resolution, the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik
also issued letter dated 14.06.2018 directing to
follow the Government instructions. The review
applicant had given notice to the original writ
petitioner on 30.03.2017 directing him to remove
the deficiencies in the proposal. Even public
notice was given in the newspaper. Objections were
called, but the writ petitioner did not comply the
objections. Again he was given a notice on
10.08.2018 for compliance. The writ petitioner
made compliance on 20.08.2018 and accordingly his
name was notified in the waiting list prepared
thereafter in tune with Government instructions.

¶17

4.The learned counsel for the review
applicant submits that all the aforesaid facts due
to inadvertence could not be brought to the notice
of the Hon'ble Court and as such, the order under

¶18

(3) RA-47-2019

¶19

Review came to be passed. The learned counsel
submits that Zilla Parishad found 188 applicants
eligible out of total 308 proposals. As per
available vacancies, 142 applicants were eligible
and in respect of remaining 46 candidates, the
vacancies were not available. The list was
published on 01.07.2017 on the website of Zilla
Parishad and the list of eligible candidates was
published. There are as many as 54 candidates like
the writ petitioner, who have not furnished all the
documents and their proposals are treated to be
incomplete. If the order under Review is
maintained, then 54 candidates similarly situated
as the petitioner would take legal recourse. The
action of the present applicant is in tune with the
Government instructions, as such, the order under
Review is required to be reviewed.

¶20

5.Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for original
writ petitioner supports the order and submits that
the petitioner was held to be eligible. The
petitioner was kept in the waiting list and he was
at serial no.105 of the seniority list. The
documents were also submitted.

¶21

6.We have considered the submissions
canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective
parties.

¶22

7.The circular dated 05.02.2010 relied by
the present review applicant states that the name

¶23

(4) RA-47-2019

¶24

of the candidates should be taken in the waiting
list after receiving all the documents from the
candidates. It is worthwhile to mention that the
name of the petitioner was already taken in the
waiting list prepared on 28.06.2017 and his name
was at serial no.105. The copy of the seniority
list is annexed with the original writ petition at
Exhibit-E. The title of the seniority list is as
under:

¶25

ftYgk ifj”kn vgenuxj

¶26

vuqdaikrRokoj vtZ dsysY;k vtZnkjkiSdh fnukad 28@06@2017 jksth P;k eqG dkxni= iMrkG.khuarj fjDr inkps miyC/krsuqlkj fu;qDrhdfjrk fopkjk/khu ik= vlysY;k vuqdaik/kkjdkph ;knh

¶27

8.Reading the said title of the seniority
list, it is manifest that the committee considered
the original documents and observed that the
persons in the seniority list are eligible for
being considered to be appointed on compassionate
ground.

¶28

9.It is not the case that, the name of the
petitioner was not taken in the seniority list
earlier on account of non-submission of documents.
The verified sheet dated 28.06.2017 prepared by the
committee has remark that the petitioner is
eligible and on the affidavit the signature of
Executive Magistrate does not appear. Apart from
that all the documents are complied with.

¶29

10.Be that as it may, original writ
petitioner was also taken on seniority list of the

¶30

(5) RA-47-2019

¶31

persons to be considered as eligible for
appointmentoncompassionategroundfrom
28.06.2017.

¶32

11.Considering the above, now it would not be
appropriate for the review petitioner to contend
otherwise.

¶33

12.The circular dated 05.02.2010 relied by
the review applicant no doubt states that, it is
only after all the documents are submitted, the
name of the persons should be taken in the
seniority list. The same circular also states
that, it is the duty of the Department to
communicate the candidates various documents
required.

¶34

13.As the name of the petitioner was already
taken in the seniority list of the persons to be
appointed on compassionate ground and the
petitioner was considered as eligible candidate as
per the verification sheet dated 28.06.2017, we had
passed the order under review.

¶35

14.The scope of this Court in entertaining
the review application is in narrow compass. The
same cannot be treated as appeal in disguise. We
had only directed that the original writ petitioner
shall be placed in the seniority list of the
persons to be appointed on compassionate ground
considering his application to be complete in all
respects on 28.06.2017 and directed the seniority

¶36

(6) RA-47-2019

¶37

list to be corrected accordingly. We have not
directed that the persons already appointed should
be disturbed. Their appointment shall not be
disturbed. The judgment under review shall not be
construed a precedent. As far as other remaining
54 candidates are concerned, we have not examined
their cases on merits. It is in the facts and
circumstances of this case and the fact that we are
in review jurisdiction, we are not entertaining the
Review Application. Review Application as such is
disposed of. No costs.

¶38

Devendra/June-19

Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar through Its Chief Executive Officer v. Ajinkya Sharad Govekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar through Its Chief Executive Officer v. Ajinkya Sharad Govekar

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

The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs Subhash Gopinath Chavan

Nilkanth Laxmanrao Gadade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jaysingrao Manjabapu Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dipak Gangadharrao Sul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Bahu Sevabhavi Sanstha Soyegaon Dist Aurangabad Thru President M B Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Adarsha Education Society Ambhai through Its Vice President Shaikh Mohammad Saleem Aashaq Hussain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others