IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12 OF 2007
Nivrutti s/o Bankatrao Rajput,
Age : 41 years, Occu.: Government
Service, at present working as
Junior Care Taker with Government
Girls' Bal Gruha, Paithan,
District Aurangabad,
R/o : Government Quarter,
Civil Court Premises, Paithan,
Taluka ; Paithan,
District : Aurangabad .. PETITIONER
(Ori. Applicant)
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Department of Women & Child,
Development, M.S., Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2) The Commissioner,
Women & Child Development,
M.S., Pune - 1
3) The Project Officer,
Women & Child Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
4) The District Women & Child
Development Officer,
Aurangabad
5) The Government Girl's Bal Gruha,
Paithan, Taluka : Paithan,
District : Aurangabad .. RESPONDENTS
(Original Non-
Applicants)
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:26:04 :::
2 wp12-2017
----
Mr. Avinash S. Deshmukh, advocate holding for
Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, advocate the petitioner
Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the respondents
----
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 13th SEPTEMBER, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for the respondents.
2. Petitioner purports to take exception to the order dated 4th April, 2006, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad ("Tribunal", for short) in Original Application No.1020 of 2005.
3. Petitioner claims the post of a driver by promotion on the basis of the Driver of Motor Cars and Jeeps in Government Offices (Recruitment) Rules, 1980, particularly, Rule 2 (a) thereof providing for the same for those who are members of staff in Class-IV Government Service and who possess qualifications and experience mentioned in sub-clauses (ii), (iii), (v) and ::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:26:04 ::: 3 wp12-2017
(vi) of clause (c) of said Rules.
4. The Tribunal has held that there has been a policy decision of the State Government, which has been reflected in the Government Resolution dated 10th September, 2001, quoting its relevant extract had considered that it was not possible to give direction to consider case of the applicant (present petitioner) for promotion to the post of driver. The extract referred to above reads, thus, ^^¼v½ okgu pkydkaph fjDr gks.kkjh ins HkjY;koj fucZa/k rlsp vfrfjDr Bj.kk&;k okgu pkydkaps O;oLFkkiu-
¼1½ in Hkjrh laca/kkrhy loZlk/kkj.k 'kkldh; /kksj.kkP;k vuq"kaxkus dks.kR;kgh dkj.kkLro fjDr >kysY;k okgupkydkaph ins Hkj.;kar ;sÅ u;sr- vioknkRed ifjfLFkrhr lqn~/kk okgu pkydkaps in eatwj dsys tk.kkj ukgh o uohu fdaok fjDr in Hkj.;kr ;s.kkj ukgh-**
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been in a position to point out that subsequently there has been any change in the policy. It is not a case that the petitioner alone has been singled out. Thus, the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference. In the set of these circumstances, there does not appear to be any merit in the writ petition calling for exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court. ::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:26:04 :::
4 wp12-2017 The writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH]
JUDGE JUDGE
npj/wp12-2017
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:26:04 :::