1 wp424.2002.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 424/2002
Ku. Lata Narayanrao Daf,
about Aged 45 yrs, Occ. Service
R/o Gomaji Ward, Hinganghat,
Distt. Wardha ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] Add. Commissioner & Regional
Director Municipal Administration
Nagpur
2] Municipal Council, Hinganghat
Through its Chief Officer,
Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha
3] Principal, New Municipal Higher
Secondary School & Junior College
4] Education Officer, Zilla Parishad,
(Secondary) Wardha ... RESPONDENTS
===================================
Miss Sangeeta Jachak, AGP for the respondent no. 1
Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for the respondent no. 4
===================================
CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
th DATED :- 4 JANUARY, 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT :-
None appeared for the petitioner on 12/07/2017, 09/08/2017, 15/12/2017,18/12/2017 and 20/12/2017. Today ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 01:08:44 ::: 2 wp424.2002.odt also, none appeared for the petitioner and the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Heard Miss Sangeeta Jachak, AGP for the respondent no. 1 and Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for the respondent no. 4. With the assistance of the learned AGPs, I have examined the documents placed on record of the writ petition. 2] The petitioner claims that she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the school administered by the respondent no. 2-Municipal Council, by the administrator by order dated 09/08/1984 and though her appointment was made properly and the respondent no. 4-Education Officer had granted approval to her appointment on 17/01/1985, her services were illegally terminated by the order dated 18/04/1985, the termination being effective from the last day of the academic session 1984-1985. 3] After examining the documents on record of the petition, I find that the petitioner has not been able to show that her appointment was made as per the prescribed procedure. There is nothing on record to show that the post in which the petitioner was appointed, was advertised. The learned Additional ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 01:08:44 ::: 3 wp424.2002.odt Commissioner has recorded in the impugned order that the documents which were produced before him show that the petitioner was interviewed by a committee of nine officers of the respondent no. 2-Municipal Council comprising of the Administrator, Chief Officer, two Headmasters, four Assistant Teachers and an Administrative Officer. It is recorded that the officer from Social Welfare And Tribal Development Department was not invited for conducting the interview, as required under the instructions issued by the Director of Municipal Administration. The learned Additional Commissioner has recorded that the documents produced before him show that six posts of Assistant Teachers were sanctioned and the petitioner was the 7th candidate to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher. It is observed by the learned Additional Commissioner that the petitioner has failed to show that the 7th post in which the petitioner was appointed was sanctioned. 4] There is nothing on record of this writ petition on the basis of which it can be said that the conclusions of the learned Additional Commissioner suffer from any illegality or perversity which necessitates interference by this Court in the extra-ordinary ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 01:08:44 ::: 4 wp424.2002.odt jurisdiction.
In view of the above, Rule is discharged. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE Ansari ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 01:08:44 :::