Bombay High Court
Subhash Keshav Chaudhari vs State Of Maha & Ors on 20 December, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
WP 5352/03 & another
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5352/2003
Subhash S/o Keshav Chaudhari,
Age-40 years, Occu.Service,
R/o Ram Mandir Ward,
Near Swami Narayan Temple,
Bhusawal,Dist.Jalgaon.
...Petitioner..
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra ,
Through Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] North Maharashtra University,
Through its Registrar.
3] The Grievance Committee,
North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon.
4] Sudhir Baburao Patil,
Age 35 years,Occu.Service,
R/o North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon.
5] Purushottam S/o Devidas Kadam,
Age 34 years, Occu.Service,
R/o North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon.
6] Prakash S/o Madhukar Zope,
Age 38 years, Occu.Service,
R/o North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon.
7] Duryodhan S/o Baburao Solunke,
Age.35 years,Occu.Service,
R/o North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon.
...Respondents...
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2016 01:43:05 :::
WP 5352/03 & another
- 2 -
---------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO.5354/2003
Anil S/o Tukaram Chaudhari,
Age-41 years, Occu.Service,
R/o "Nil-Jit", 63-A,
Professor Colony,Jamner Road,
Bhusawal, Dist.Jalgaon.
...Petitioner..
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra ,
Through Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] North Maharashtra University,
Through its Registrar.
3] The Grievance Committee,
North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon.
4] Sudhir Baburao Patil,
Age-35 years,Occu.Service,
R/o North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon.
5] Purushottam S/o Devidas Kadam,
Age-34 years, Occu.Service,
R/o North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon.
6] Prakash S/o Madhukar Zope,
Age 38 years, Occu.Service,
R/o North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon.
7] Duryodhan S/o Baburao Solunke,
Age.35 years,Occu.Service,
R/o North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon.
...Respondents...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2016 01:43:05 :::
WP 5352/03 & another
- 3 -
Shri A.G.Talhar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms.S.S.Raut, AGP for the State.
Shri A.B.Girase, Advocate h/f Shri R.B.Raghuwanshi,
Advocate for Respondent No.2 in both petitions.
Respondent No.3 served.
Shri M.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 7 in
both petitions.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 20.12.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.):
1] The petitioners herein pursuant to the selection
process of the year 1991 were appointed as Assistants.
The respondents herein had applied for the post of Peon
and were appointed as Peon. Mr.Talhar, learned counsel
for the petitioners submits that though these respondents
were appointed as Peons, they were granted promotion as
Assistants against the Rules and in the seniority list of
Assistant, are placed above the petitioners, who were
originally selected as Assistants. The same is
impermissible. Even Rule 3(2) relied upon by the
respondents would not be of any aid to them. Their
services were confirmed as Peon in the year 1994/1995.
Whereas, the petitioners were appointed on probation as
Assistant in January, 1995, whereas were given
WP 5352/03 & another
- 4 -
appointments on contract basis since the year 1993. By
no stretch, the respondents could have been shown as
senior to the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant.
2] Mr.Girase, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 -
University submits that the respondents were appointed
initially as Peon, however, subsequently were promoted as
Assistants. The learned counsel submits that the
University has given the details of each and every
respondent and the petitioner about the appointments,
date of joining, date of confirmation and no illegality
has been committed by the University.
3] Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the contesting
respondent nos.4 to 7, submits that Sub-rule (2) of Rule
3 would be relevant and from Class IV to Class III, a
person can be promoted after completion of three years of
service in Class IV, the same has been rightly considered
and four respondents i.e. Sudhir, Purushottam, Duryodhan
and Prakash have been confirmed as Assistants on
completion of probation period in January, 1997.
4] We have considered the contentions of the learned
counsel for the parties.
5] At the outset, we express our displeasure towards
the manner in which the record is maintained by the
WP 5352/03 & another
- 5 -
University. The charts filed on record by the University
in the affidavit in reply are certainly not in keeping
with the rules, more particularly the Standard Code
Rules, 1984. In Writ Petition No.5351/2003, the
respondent no.4 is shown to have been selected under the
selection process of 1991 as a Laboratory Attendant. He
is appointed as a Peon on probation with effect from
3.10.1992 and is confirmed as a Peon on probation on
3.10.1994. Thereafter, he is appointed as an Assistant
for a temporary period of six months on 21/22-11-1994
i.e. within one month and thereafter on 3.1.1995, he is
appointed as an Assistant on probation with effect from
2.1.1995. During the period, the respondent is shown to
be on probation as Peon, he is also shown to be working
as Assistant. The similar state of affairs can be
observed in respect of respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 in Writ
Petition No.5354/2003. We fail to understand the manner
in which the recruitment rules are followed. In fact, it
appears that they have followed the said rules more in
breach. The candidate is appointed in Class IV category.
He is also appointed on probation in Class IV category
and during the period of his probation on Class IV
category, he is also working as an Assistant in Class III
WP 5352/03 & another
- 6 -
category. The affidavit further states that initial
record is also not available. But the fact remains that
these respondents are shown to have been selected as Peon
in the selection process conducted pursuant to the
advertisement of the year 1991. Certainly, these persons
cannot be shown to be senior to the petitioners who are
admittedly selected as Assistants in the same selection
process.
6] Considering the above, we quash the impugned order.
Both the petitioners are to be considered as Assistants
senior to the respondents herein as they have been
appointed as Assistants. In the present writ petition,
we are not disturbing the position as existing today. As
far as promotion to the post of Senior Assistant is
concerned, the criteria is seniority-cum-merit, which the
departmental promotion committee or such other authority
under the statute is required to consider. The
petitioners may apply to the authorities for such further
benefits as may be permissible in law. Rule is
accordingly disposed of. No costs.
(K.L. WADANE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)
ndk/c20121621.doc
