wp2364.97.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2364/1997
PETITIONERS : 1. Manohar s/o Baliram Jambhulkar,
aged about 46 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Murri, Tah - Gondia, Dist - Bhandara.
2. Maidanshain s/o Tikaram Badge,
aged about 46 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o old Gondia, Ghandhiward, Gondia,
Dist - Bhandara.
3. Lakhanlal s/o Harichand Limkar,
aged about 41 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Nawargaon (Khurd) Post - Nawargaon (Kala),
Tah - Gondia, Dist - Bhandara.
4. Nandkishore s/o Ramaji Bhivgade,
aged about 43 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Civil Lines, Gondia, Dist - Bhandara.
5. Chandraprakash s/o Atmaram Dhumbare,
aged about 41 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Kati (Birsola), Tah - Gondia, Dist - Bhandara.
6. Vijaysingh s/o Bhagwansingh Suryawanshi,
aged about 41 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Ganeshnagar, near Ganeshmandir, Gondia,
Dist - Bhandara.
7. Mukunda s/o Nagoji Dorle,
aged about 42 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Manegaon, Tah - Sakoli, Dist - Bhandara.
8. Namdeo s/o Pandurang Girhepunje,
aged about 44 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Lakhani Ward No.5, Tah - Sakoli, Dist.
Bhandara.
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:58 :::
wp2364.97.odt
2
9. Dewaji s/o Dashrath Wadhai,
aged about 42 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Gondegaon, Post - Gurdha, Tah - Lakhandur,
Dist - Bhandara.
10. Maniram s/o Ramaji Mahture,
aged about 44 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Lakhani, Post - Lakhani,
Tah - Sakoli, Dist. - Bhandara.
11. Khushal s/o Bajirao Kharabe,
aged about 42 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Seloti, Post - Seloti, Tah. - Sakoli,
Dist - Bhandara.
12. Vishwasrao s/o Rupchand Kshirsagar,
aged about 43 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Khursipar Tola, Post - Chirchadbandh,
Tah - Goregaon, Dist - Bhandara.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Collector, Bhandara, Dist - Bhandara.
2. The State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 05.06.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction against the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:58 ::: wp2364.97.odt 3 by quashing and setting aside the impugned order refusing to grant the appointment to the petitioners.
The petitioners had worked in the temporary vacancies that arose when the Government employees went on strike on the eve of election to the legislative assembly in the year 1977-78. Basing their claim for appointment on Strike Period Recruitment Rules, 1978 that granted some concession and facilities to the persons that had worked when the regular employees were on strike, the petitioners claimed for their appointment. By the Government decision, the age limit in case of candidates in general category for the purpose of appointment was relaxed up to 40 years and in the case of backward classes up to 45 years. According to the petitioners, they were called for the interview but were not appointed though they were selected. The petitioners and several others therefore filed separate original applications before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the applications filed by the petitioners and the other similarly situated persons and directed the Collector to consider the claim of the petitioners for their employment in Class-III or Class-IV services, if there are vacancies in the said posts. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners were called along with the other employees that had filed the original applications. ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:58 :::
wp2364.97.odt 4 According to the petitioners, though several other employees were appointed in Class-III and Class-IV posts the claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that the petitioners were age barred.
On hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents and on a perusal of the documents annexed to the petition, it appears that the relief sought by the petitioners in this writ petition cannot be granted. All the petitioners had admittedly crossed the age of 40 years at the time of filing of the petition as could be reflected from the cause title. The petitioners were more than 40 years of age at the time of filing of the petition. More than 20 years have lapsed from the date of filing of the petition and the petitioners must have crossed the age of 60. Some of the petitioners may be aged about 64 and 66, as could be gauged from the copy of the petition. If that be so, it would not be appropriate to consider granting the relief to the petitioners by directing the Collector to consider the claim of the petitioners for their appointment in Class-III and Class-IV posts. The writ petition is filed in the year 1997. The cause for filing the writ petition is rendered infructuous due to passage of time as the petitioners were never appointed during the pendency of the proceedings by granting any interim relief and the petitioners are not appointed by the Collector till date. If that is so and if the petitioners have surpassed the age of superannuation the claim of the ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:58 ::: wp2364.97.odt 5 petitioners for appointment in Class-III and Class-IV services cannot be considered.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:58 :::