Mr. Sunil Laxman Kamble And 66 ... vs The Municipal Corporation For ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3059 Bom

    ssm                                                                        1                 904-wp831.15.sxw

                   IN THE  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION




                                                                                                           
                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 831 OF 2015




                                                                                   
    Mr. Sunil Laxman Kamble & Ors.                                                          ....Petitioners.

                          Vs.




                                                                                  
    The Municipal Corporation for 
    Greater Mumbai                                                                          ....Respondent. 




                                                                      
    Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioners.
    Mr. S.S. Pakhale for Respondent-MCGM.    
                                     CORAM  :  ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
                                            
                                                  G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE : 21 JUNE 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.):-

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by

consent of the parties.

2 The Petitioners, who are the legal heirs and/or sons and

daughters of the employees of the Respondent-Corporation, are

claiming appointment in the employment of Respondent-Corporation,

as they applied within time in pursuance to circular dated 6 January

1997. They claim to be still in the waiting list. Some of the

ssm 2 904-wp831.15.sxw

candidates from the said waiting list, as stated to the extent of 680,

have already been appointed till 4 April 2000.

3 The Respondent, through an affidavit and even otherwise,

has pointed out that pursuant to circular dated 4 April 2000, the

earlier circular in question was superseded/withdrawn and therefore,

there is no question of granting any benefits to the Petitioners, even

though they are in the waiting list.

4 The Division Bench of this Court (Coram:- A.M.

Khanwilkar and Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.) in Balu Dadu Londhe

& Ors. Vs. Municipal Commissioner, Brihan Mumbai Municipal

Corporation & Ors. 1 considering a similar challenge, including the

appointment of the candidates made by the Respondent from the

waiting list based upon the circular and who had also claimed similar

reliefs, dismissed the Petition. Considering similar averments made in

both these Writ Petitions, we see there is no case made out by the

Petitioners for grant of the reliefs, so prayed for based upon circular of

25 November 1999. The submission is that, this circular though was

1 Writ Petition No. 559 of 2011, dated 3 May 2011,

ssm 3 904-wp831.15.sxw

on record on the date of Judgment, in earlier Writ Petition, where the

challenge to circular dated 4 April 2000 was made, whereby circular

dated 6 January 1997 was withdrawn, yet no specific findings and

reasons are given, including the protection so available in pursuance

to the circular of 25 November 1999 as submitted. We are not

inclined to accept this submission. The Division Bench has examined

and rejected the Writ Petition on all the basic issues and considering

the similar submissions and the similar grounds about the

appointment of 680 candidates, referring to circular of 6 January

1997 and similar prayers to extend the same benefits. For the reasons

so recorded above, even otherwise, no case is made out by the

Petitioners for the reliefs, merely because additional challenge is

raised revolving around the superseded circular dated 6 January 1997.

5 In any event, in view of the law laid down by the Apex

2 , as Court in Yogender Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

taken into consideration by the Division Bench in deciding Balu Dadu

Londhe & Ors. (Supra), we see that no relief can be granted as in the

above referred case, the Apex Court has held that such appointments

2 1987 I SVLR (L) 38

ssm 4 904-wp831.15.sxw

are contrary to the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

This is also in the background that circular of 4 April 2000, was never

challenged by the Petitioner in the present Petition.

6 Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs.

               (G.S. KULKARNI, J.)                                                  (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)