Ku. Reena Balraj Meshram (Sau. ... vs Regional Deputy Commissioner ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6179 Bom

                                                        1                          wp1415.16.odt


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                        
                          NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR




                                                                
                              WRIT PETITION NO.1415/2016


            Ku. Reena Balraj Meshram
            (Sau. Reena Bhivendra Chaudhary), 




                                                               
            aged about 30 years, Occ. Service,
            Pragati Primary Ashram School,
            Sarandi, Tq. Tiroda, Dist. Gondia.                   .....PETITIONER




                                                
                                   ...V E R S U S...

     1.
                             
            Regional Deputy Commissioner,
            Social Welfare Department, 
            Nagpur Region, Nagpur.
                            
     2.     Assistant Commissioner,
            Social Welfare Department,
            Gondia, Dist. Gondia.
      


     3.     Yuvak Gramin Vikas Shikshan Sanstha,
   



            Sarandi, Tq. Tiroda, Dist. Gondia,
            thr.its Secretary, Mohd. Nasir Qureshi,
            r/o Sarandi, Post Sarandi, Tq. Tiroda,
            Dist. Gondia.





     4.     I/c Head Master, Pragati Primary
            Ashram School, Sarandi, Tq. Tiroda,
            Dist. Gondia.                                        ...RESPONDENTS





     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Mr. A. Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for petitioner.
     Mr. A. Balpande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
     Mr. I. Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     CORAM:-  B. R. GAVAI &    V. M. DESHPAND E, JJ.

DATED :-

OCTOBER 19, 2016

2 wp1415.16.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B. R. GAVAI, J.)

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent

of the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on the part of the

respondent nos.1 and 2 in not granting permanent approval to the

appointment of the petitioner.

3.

The petitioner was appointed in the year 2009 against a

post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. It is not in dispute

that the initial appointment of the petitioner was on permanent and

clear vacancy and after following the due selection process. However,

it appears that though the appointment of the petitioner was against

a clear and vacant post, there were excess appointments in the

category of Scheduled Caste. Initially, the petitioner was also

granted approval on a post against the Scheduled Caste category.

4. The petitioner had approached this Court initially by filing

Writ Petition No.6691/2013 seeking permanent approval to her

appointment. This Court had, vide order dated 16.04.2014 found

that as against one post reserved for Scheduled Caste, two persons

3 wp1415.16.odt

were appointed. It was, however, found that one post belonging to

the Open category was lying vacant. As such, the matter was remitted

to the Divisional Social Welfare Officer to hear the petitioner and to

take a suitable decision. Taking into consideration the peculiar

circumstances of the case, the management agreed to adjust the

petitioner against an Open category post. Accordingly, a proposal

was submitted to the respondent no.1 for grant of approval. Again,

vide order dated 16.04.2015, the approval is granted to the

petitioner's appointment from 09.02.2011 till 31.04.2015 subject to

the condition that backlog in the category of Scheduled Tribe shall be

filled in.

5. Perusal of the record would reveal that out of seven posts

sanctioned to the respondent no.4-School, six are filled in and the

seventh post, which is kept reserved for the Scheduled Tribe, is yet

not filled in. It can thus be seen that the post on which the petitioner

is being adjusted is within the sanctioned strength. No doubt that

though the petitioner was originally appointed against a post

reserved for the Scheduled Caste, now she is being adjusted against a

post reserved for the Open category.

4 wp1415.16.odt

6. A person belonging to the reserved category can always be

adjusted against an open category post. Undisputedly, the petitioner's

appointment was after selection and after she was found to be

meritorious. It is not as if that the petitioner is being adjusted

against a post reserved for any category.

7. In that view of the matter, we find that the respondents

are unjustified in denying permanent approval to the petitioner even

though she is continuously working for more than seven years.

Hence, we direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to accept the proposal

of the petitioner and respondent nos. 3 and 4 and grant permanent

approval to the appointment of the petitioner.

Needless to state that the petitioner shall be treated as a

regular employee from the date of her appointment and would be

entitled to all the consequential benefits.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.

                          (V. M. Deshpande, J.)                    (B. R. Gavai, J.)

     kahale