Bombay High Court
Madanlal Gyasilal Gupta vs Municipal Corp. Of Amravati Thr. ... on 26 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp82.05 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 82 OF 2005
Madanlal Gyasilal Gupta
aged about 58 years,
r/o 13/181, Near Dr.
Madhavdas Gemnani Hospital,
Patwa Chowk, Mesanganj,
Amravati 444 601. ... PETITIONER
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Amravati
through its Commissioner,
Amravati. ... RESPONDENT
Shri Anand Parchure with Shri Dharaskar, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the respondent.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
APRIL 26, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Shri Parchure with Shri Dharaskar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kasat, learned AGP for the
respondent.
2. The petitioner claims appointment as Head Master
on the ground that he was senior-most Assistant Teacher in
Hindi Boys High School, Amravati, of the respondent on
31.12.2003 and earlier Head Master Shri R.G. Purohit retired.
Our attention is drawn to the orders passed by this Court while
issuing Rule in the matter on 10.03.2005 to submit that though
the petitioner has retired, his entitlement to pay-scale and other
consequential benefits are protected by this order.
3.
Shri Dharaskar, learned counsel submits that the
Municipal Corporation has not placed on record any seniority
list showing that some other person is senior to the present
petitioner. He, therefore, submits that it is absolutely necessary
to recognize the fact that additional charge was directed to be
handed over to the petitioner and thereafter he was also given
necessary financial and administrative powers.
4. Shri Kasat, learned counsel is relying upon the reply
affidavit. He states that as per communication dated
30.12.1995, the respondent was asked to prepare a common
seniority list of all Teachers working in its various Schools.
Accordingly, that list was prepared and three persons viz. Shri
D.B. Dharmale, Shri V.W. Bhuyar and Mrs. Aruna Patil were
found senior to the present petitioner, as such the petitioner
could not have been promoted. He adds that after retirement
of Shri Purohit, if ad-hoc arrangement is made and additional
charge has been given to the present petitioner, that does not
entitle him to claim salary or other benefits which are attached
only with the post of Head Master.
5. The fact that Shri Purohit, learned counsel retired
on 31.12.2003 is not in dispute. While retiring, Shri Purohit
was called upon to hand over charge to the present petitioner
as he was the senior-most Teacher available in the School. By
later orders, the petitioner has also been given financial and
administrative powers. However, the petitioner has not shown
that in the entire Municipal Corporation, there was no other
Teacher senior to him. The Municipal Corporation has come up
with a specific stand that as per communication dated
30.12.1995, it has maintained a common seniority list and
three persons mentioned supra happened to be seniors to the
present petitioner. This stand is taken in preliminary
submissions submitted on record on 18.06.2005 and the
petitioner thereafter has not amended his petition and has also
not countered these facts.
6. In this situation, it is apparent that the petitioner is
unable to demonstrate any legal right in him to claim the post
of Head Master. As such, no appointment order can be issued
to him for that post. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Rule discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
