Bombay High Court
Rajesh Chunnilal Bawankule & 53 ... vs State Of Mah & 4 Others on 7 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp4756.03 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4756 OF 2003
1. Rajesh Chunnilal Bawankule,
aged 22 years, occupation - Nil
2. Sanjay Chunnilal Bawankule,
aged 25 years, occupation - Nil
3. Digambar Madhukar Sawarkar,
aged 25 years, occupation - Nil
4. Ku. Hirabai Jivanlal Bawankule,
aged 34 years, occupation - Nil
5. Gajanan Chindhba Vairagade,
aged 25 years, occupation - Nil
6. Sanjay Bhaduji Bhoyar,
aged 28 years, occupation - Nil
7. Vinod Hiralal Solanki,
aged 26 years, occupation - Nil
8. Irfan Usman Gadaknoj,
aged 23 years, occupation - Nil
9. Mahesh Sahadeoji Ghurile,
aged 25 years, occupation - Nil
10.Purushottam Chidhaba Ingole,
aged 23 years, occupation - Nil
11.Yuvraj Natthuji Rokde,
aged 21 years, occupation - Nil
12.Kumbhadas Dhondba Waghmare,
aged 33 years, occupation - Nil
13.Ku. Ganga Panjab Mandavkar,
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:33:45 :::
wp4756.03 2
aged 26 years, occupation - Nil
14.Ku. Usha Laxman Nindekar,
aged 25 years, occupation - Nil
15.Dipak Nandlal Birkhede,
aged 21 years, occupation - Nil
16.Ashok Waman Kalmegh,
aged 28 years, occupation - Nil
17.Namdeo Ganpat Gabhane,
aged 28 years, occupation - Nil
18.Prafulla Shyamrao Dhavale,
aged 22 years, occupation - Nil
19.Liladhar Mansaram Dakhole,
aged 28 years, occupation - Nil
20.Sawak Govinda Dakhole,
aged 24 years, occupation - Nil
21.Premlal Narsingh Bhirkhede,
aged 35 years, occupation - Nil
22.Gopal Chindhba Bawankule,
aged 24 years, occupation - Nil
23.Arjun Pandurang Ingole,
aged 25 years, occupation - Nil
24.Gunwant Bapurao Bhakre,
aged 23 years, occupation - Nil
25.Kishore Ramaji Bhakre,
aged 23 years, occupation - Nil
26.Surendra Mohan Bhakre,
aged 23 years, occupation - Nil
27.Arun Babanrao Bhange,
aged 24 years, occupation - Nil
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:33:45 :::
wp4756.03 3
28.Ruprao Shriram Vairgade,
aged 20 years, occupation - Nil
29.Pravin Ishwardas Bawankule,
aged 20 years, occupation - Nil
30.Indrajeet Dulliram Birkhede,
aged 20 years, occupation - Nil
31.Shanmukh Ruprao Ingole,
aged 21 years, occupation - Nil
32.Vijay Shripad Rokde,
aged 21 years, occupation - Nil
33.Chandrakant Gajanand Kemekar,
aged 23 years, occupation - Nil
34.Manohar Haribhau Mandavkar,
aged 25 years, occupation - Nil
35.Purushottam Krushnarao Bawankule,
aged 23 years, occupation - Nil
36.Pramod Shridhar Bondre,
aged 25 years, occupation - Nil
37.Indrajeet Jivanlal Bawankule,
aged 27 years, occupation - Nil
38.Ganesh Sadhuji Gabhane,
aged 22 years, occupation - Nil
39.Santosh Lataruji Sarad,
aged 22 years, occupation - Nil
40.Rajendra Krushnarao Savarkar,
aged 27 years, occupation - Nil
41.Wasudeo Arjun Gondale,
aged 21 years, occupation - Nil
42.Ravindra Laxman Nindekar,
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:33:45 :::
wp4756.03 4
aged 21 years, occupation - Nil
43.Diwakar Mahadeo Manvatkar,
aged 35 years, occupation - Nil
44.Sanjay Bodlya Gondale,
aged 25 years, occupation - Nil
45.Shrikrushna Manohar Dorle,
aged 19 years, occupation - Nil
46.Ku. Sangita Govinda Dakhole,
aged 23 years, occupation - Nil
47.Smt. Vanashri Devaji Gabhane,
aged 24 years, occupation - Nil
48.Kamlakar Narottam Waghmare,
aged 35 years, occupation - Nil
49.Mohan Vitthal Kantode,
aged 24 years, occupation - Nil
50.Shankar Dullichand Bawankule,
aged 22 years, occupation - Nil
51.Maya Shriramji Dakhole,
Major, occupation - Nil
52.Ku. Malti Harishchandra Bawankule,
Major, occupation - Nil
53.Ku. Padmabai Giridhar Khangarale,
Major, occupation - Nil
54.Jagdish Harishchandra Bawankule,
Major, occupation - Nil
Nos. 1 to 5, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 28,
29, 31, 32, 37 to 40, 45 to 47, 49, 50, 51,
52 and 54 are residents of Khasala, Tahsil
Kamthi, District - Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:33:45 :::
wp4756.03 5
Nos. 7, 8, 18, 35, 36 and 53 residents
of Koradi, Tahsil - Kamthi, Dist. Nagpur.
Nos. 24, 25, 26, 41 & 44 residents of
Waregaon, Tahsil - Kamthi, Dist. - Nagpur.
Nos. 6, 12, 14, 42 and 43 r/o Mahadula,
Koradi, Tahsil - Kamthi, Nagpur.
Nos. 9, 13, 15, 16, 21, 30, 33, 34 and
49 residents of New Koradi, Tahsil -
Kamthi, District - Nagpur.
No. 27 resident of Plot No. 27, Chikhale
Layout, Zingabai Takli, Nagpur. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Department of
General Administration, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Department of
Energy, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3. Maharashtra State Electricity Board
through its Secretary, having its office
at Prakashgadh, Western Express
Highway, Bandra, Mumbai.
4. Chief Engineer,
Koradi Thermal Power Station,
Koradi, District - Nagpur.
5. The Collector, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri R.B. Dhore, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional GP for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5.
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
.....
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:33:45 :::
wp4756.03 6
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
JUNE 07, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Shri Dhore, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Shri Fulzele, learned Additional Government
Pleader for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5 and Shri Mohgaonkar,
learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
2. 54 petitioners before this Court claim a writ to the
respondents to absorb them in service in Class III and Class IV
categories as they are project affected persons.
3. Shri Dhore, learned counsel for the petitioners
states that though he has sent messages, he could not contact
all the petitioners and hence their present status is not known.
He is seeking time to obtain instructions or to take appropriate
steps in the matter.
4. Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel submits that
after Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra
Pandurang Pagare & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
reported at 2009 (4) Mh. L.J. 961, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have
issued a policy decision and seats are separately reserved for
project affected persons. A competitive examination is held and
such of them as qualify in it, are provided employment. He
further contends that as per the schemes, the nominees of
project affected persons, who are not holding any skilled
qualification, are imparted training by Respondent Nos. 3 & 4
and they are also being paid stipend of Rs.10,000/- per month.
He is also seeking adjournment to place on record these
developments. He submits that by this time all the petitioners
must have been provided employment as new schemes have
come into force in 2010 itself.
5. Shri Fulzele, learned Additional GP is relying upon
Full Bench judgment to urge that there cannot be any writ
issued to the respondents to provide employment.
6. The judgment of Full Bench of this Court is very
clear. As per that judgment, there has to be open competitive
selection process and for that purpose a public advertisement.
Thus, the project affected persons compete in it and such of
them as are found fit and eligible, get the opportunity. The
competition is limited only to project affected persons.
7. The respondents, after this judgment of Full Bench
against them, have issued necessary policy to enable the
persons like the petitioners to compete with each other. An
administrative circular No. 118 dated 07.06.2010 is produced
by Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel, to show to this Court the
procedure to be followed. We have taken copy of this circular
on record and marked it as Exh. 'X'.
8. The present petition has been filed on 30.07.2003
and is pending before this Court for the past 13 years. The
entire complexion of challenge has undergone change due to
Full Bench judgment mentioned supra. We also find some
substance in the submission of Shri Mohgaonkar, learned
counsel that most of the petitioners might have been by now
recruited as project affected persons.
9. To allow the respondents to place on record
changed policy and thereafter to grant the petitioners an
opportunity to place their contentions on record will be nothing
but considering entirely a new challenge.
10. We, therefore, find that interest of justice can be
met with by permitting such of the petitioners, who have not
been recruited till date by the respondents, an opportunity to
make representation to Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Respondent
Nos. 3 & 4 have filed their submissions before this Court and in
it they have pointed out a waiting list then being maintained.
Respondent No. 5 - Collector has also filed submissions and
pointed out that a waiting list was being maintained. It,
therefore, appears that their names are appearing on these
waiting lists. If their grievance is still not redressed, the
respondents can look into their grievance as per law. If such a
representation is made by any of the petitioners within three
months from today, the respondents shall look into it as per law
within next three months.
11. With liberty to the petitioners, whose grievance
shall not be redressed at the end of expiry of above mentioned
period i.e. within a period of six months from today, to
approach this Court again with their grievance, we dispose of
the present writ petition. Rule discharged. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
