Ravindra Purushottam Dudhe, ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secty & 2 ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 2 Bom

                                             1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                                       
                                                               
                   WRIT PETITION NO.1080 OF 2009.


    PETITIONER: -          Ravindra Purushottam Dudhe,




                                                              
                           resident of Balapur (Old City), Tq.
                           Balapur, Distt.Akola.




                                                 
                                      ..VERSUS.. 
                                 
    RESPONDENTS:  1. State of Maharashtra through its
                      Secretary, General Administration
                                
                     Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

                        2. Chief Executive Officer,
                            Zilla Parishad, Akola.
           
        



                        3. Ramesh Shankar Thakare,
                            R/o Chondi, Tq.Patur, Distt.Akola.

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=





    Mr. Deshmukh Adv. h/f P.C.Madkholkar for the petitioner.
    Mr.T.A.Mirza, AGP for respondent no.1.
    Mr.Shelke Adv. for respondent no.2.
    Mr.O.Y.Kashid Adv. for respondent no.3.                                        
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-





                               C
                                  ORAM
                                       :     J.P.DEVADHAR AND
                                            A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ.

DATED : 11th October, 2010.

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per A.B.Chaudhari, J.)

1. Rule. Rule heard forthwith with the consent of learned

counsel for the rival parties.

2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has put to

challenge the appointment of respondent no.3, which was made on

16/8/1996 by Chief Executive Officer, Z.P.Akola on the ground that

respondent no.3 did not hold the requisite qualification namely; the

Typing Test. This writ petition was filed on 15/12/2008 in this

court. It is not in dispute that respondent no.3 in the subsequent

year of his appointment acquired the necessary qualification and has

been in the employment for last several years. In our opinion, it

would be inappropriate to disturb his appointment at such a late

stage even assuming that he was not qualified on the date of

appointment. At any rate, appointment of the petitioner of the year

1996 is sought to be challenged in the year 2008. In this view of

the matter, we are not inclined to interfere in so far as prayer clause

'A' of the writ petition is concerned. We, therefore, dismiss the

challenge of the appointment of respondent no.3 which was made

in the year 1996.

3. We, however, find that the petitioner was appointed on

compassionate ground and could have been appointed at the

relevant time in Class - III cadre but for whatever reason was not

appointed. We, therefore, record the statement made by Mr.Shelke,

learned counsel for the Chief Executive Officer, Z.P.Akola that as and

when vacancy in Class III cadre arises, the case of the petitioner

would be considered sympathetically. Hence, the writ petition is

disposed of.

                 JUDGE                                   JUDGE.




                                                           
    pzc