Bombay High Court
Ashok Sukha Khadse vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 August, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp598214.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5982 OF 2014
Ashok s/o Sukha Khadse,
age: 46 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Bhaldi (Bk.),
Tq. & District Jalgaon. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Rural Development and
Water Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
02 The Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
03 The Collector, Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon.
04 The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon.
05 Vasudeo Tulshiram Mahajan,
age: major, Occ: service,
R/o Ayurvedic Dispensary
Shirasmani, Tq. Parola,
District Jalgaon.
06 Ramkrishna Pralhad Mahajan,
age: major, Occ: service,
R/o Primary Health Center,
Mhasawad,
Tq. & District Jalgaon. Respondents
Mr.A.V.Hon, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.R.Kale, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.Vijay Sharma, advocate for Respondent No.4.
Respondents No.5 and 6 are served.
::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2016 00:28:46 :::
{2}
wp598214.odt
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
K.L.WADANE, JJ.
Reserved on : 08 th June, 2016
Pronounced on : 2nd August, 2016.
JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):
1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2 Petitioner, who is an employee of the Village Panchayat
Bhaldi (Bk.), Tq. & District Jalgaon, is claiming his absorption in the
services of Zilla Parishad in view of the provisions of Maharashtra Zilla
Parishad and Panchayat Samiti (Recruitment) Rules, 1967.
3 The petitioner is employed in Village Panchayat Bhaldi (Bk.),
Tq. and District Jalgaon, as a water supply worker since 1992.
According to the petitioner, his service record is clean and he does fulfill
requirements for absorption in the services of Zilla Parishad from
amongst quota of 10 per cent prescribed for village panchayat employees.
The petitioner states that in the year 2007, he was placed at Sr.No.320 in
the seniority list maintained by the Zilla Parishad for the purposes of
absorption of village panchayat employees, whereas, his name appeared
at Sr.No.184 in the list published in the year 2008. In the year 2009, his
name was placed in the seniority list at Sr.No.187, whereas, in the year
2011, his serial number in the seniority list was 114. Similarly, in the
years 2012 and 2013, his name appeared in the seniority list of
employees of village panchayat maintained by the Zilla Parishad, at
Sr.No.91 and 68, respectively. Name of the petitioner disappeared
suddenly in the year 2014 and as such, he has an apprehension that he
would not be considered eligible for absorption in Zilla Parishad services.
{3}
wp598214.odt
4 The petitioner claims that Respondents No.5 and 6, who are
junior to him, have already been absorbed in Zilla Parishad services by
bypassing seniority claim of the petitioner, on 09.04.2008 and
23.01.2009. The petitioner claims his entitlement from reserved category
of physically handicapped employees, so also petitioner belongs to Other
Backward Class category and as such, has a preferential claim, being an
employee from reserved category.
5 The petitioner states that Respondents No.5 and 6 are also
from amongst the category of physically handicapped persons and are
much junior to him. The placement of petitioner in the seniority list of
the year 2007 is at Sr.No.320 and in the year 2008 at Sr.No.184. The
change is effected after he tendered his disability certificate. So far
as Respondents No.5 and 6 are concerned, they are placed at Sr.Nos.397
and 499 in the seniority list maintained in the year 2007. It is, thus,
clear that petitioner is senior to Respondents No.5 and 6.
6 An affidavit-in-reply has been presented on behalf of
Respondents wherein it has been stated that since petitioner has
completed 45 years of age in the year 2014, his name has been deleted
from the seniority list. As per Rules framed by the Zilla Parishad, an
employee is entitled to be promoted if he holds requisite qualification and
is below 45 years of age. Since petitioner has crossed prescribed age
limit, his name was struck off from the seniority list.
7 The Respondents have not given any justiciable reason for
bypassing claim of the petitioner in the year 2008 when claim of
Respondents No.5 and 6 was favourably considered. Admittedly,
petitioner is senior to Respondents No.5 and 6 and all are from the
category of physically handicapped employees. The petitioner claims that
he has tendered disability certificate in the year 2006 and as such, in the
seniority list of the year 2008, he has been placed at Sr.No.184, though
{4}
wp598214.odt
his placement in the seniority list of the year 2007 was at Sr.No.320. The
claim of Respondents No.5 and 6 was considered in the year 2008 and at
the relevant time, petitioner was surely shown to be senior in the list of
those promoted employees. It is, thus, clear that petitioner's seniority
claim has been bypassed without there being any justiciable reason.
There is no explanation forthcoming as to why petitioner has not been
considered.
8 Considering the facts as recorded above, we deem it
appropriate to direct the Respondents to absorb petitioner in the services
of Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, in view of provisions of Maharashtra Zilla
Parishad and Panchayat Samiti (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, if necessary,
by relaxing the age criteria.
9 Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order
as to costs.
K.L.WADANE R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
