Bombay High Court
Manoranjan Raosaheb Dhas vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 27 September, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 W.P.No.2705/15 with CA No.1023/16
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.2705 OF 2015
WITH
C.A.NO.1023 OF 2016
IN
W.P.NO.2705 OF 2015.
Manoranjan S/o Raosaheb Dhas,
Aged 36 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Jamgaon, Tq.Ashti,
Dist.Beed. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1.The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
General Administration
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed. ... Respondents.
...
Mr.V.J.Dixit, Senior advocate i/by
Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.S.Badakh, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr.P.D.Suryawanshi, advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr.B.T.Bodke, advocate holding for
Mr.S.N.Gaikwad, advocate for intervener.
...
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:07:02 :::
2 W.P.No.2705/15 with CA No.1023/16
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
K.L.WADANE,JJ.
Date : 27.09.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing.
3. Mr.Dixit, learned Senior advocate for
the petitioner states that the petitioner was
appointed as a Primary Teacher by following due
procedure of law. Advertisement was issued.
Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner
applied and the petitioner was selected. As per
the Rules, on completion of five (5) years, the
Primary Teacher is entitled for promotion as
Extension Officer (Education). The learned
Senior advocate submits that petitioner had
completed more than six (6) years, as such was
promoted as Extension Officer (Education). The
service book of the petitioner also shows
continuation in service. The petitioner had not
used the certificate of the freedom fighter or he
being nominee of the freedom fighter. According
to the learned counsel even the order directing
setting aside the freedom fighter's certificate
of Kisan Sarjerao Sole, who had nominated the
petitioner is set aside by the Apex Court in SLP
filed by said Kisan Sarjerao Sole. As such the
very basis upon which the impugned notice is
issued does not survive.
4. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for
Respondent No.2 submits that petitioner was
appointed as a Primary teacher by following due
procedure of law pursuant to an advertisement and
not as a nominee of freedom fighter. However,
while appointing the petitioner as an Education
Extension Officer (Education), benefit of the
nomination given to him by the freedom fighter
Kisan Sole was given to him. It is because he
was nominee of the freedom fighter, the
petitioner was appointed as an Extension Officer
(Education). The petitioner was not standing in
seniority at the relevant time to be promoted as
Extension Officer (Education). According to the
learned counsel, Respondent No.2 has rightly
issued notice and the same is in compliance with
the directives of the Government.
5. We have heard learned A.G.P. also and
Mr.Bodke, learned counsel for the Intervener.
6. There is no dispute that the petitioner
was appointed as a Primary teacher by following
due process of law and that the petitioner had
not taken any benefit of being a nominee of
freedom fighter. The dispute is about the
appointment of the petitioner as Extension
Officer (Education) i.e. whether the same was by
way of promotion or as a nominee of freedom
fighter. Pursuant to the report of Justice
Palkar Commission, it was found that there are
about 298 bogus freedom fighter certificates
issued, Kisan Sole, was one of them. As
submitted by the petitioner, said Kisan Sole had
filed Writ Petition before this Court, the same
was dismissed. Against the said order Kisan
Sole, had filed SLP before the Apex Court and the
same is allowed. The freedom fighter's
certificate given to said Kisan Sole, is
protected.
7. In view of the above, the very basis of
issuing notice to the petitioner does not
survive. In view of that, we are not required to
consider as to whether the petitioner was
promoted as an Extension Officer (Education) in
due course or was appointed as Extension Officer
(Education) as a nominee of freedom fighter.
8. In light of the above, the impugned
notice dated 23.12.2014, is quashed and set
aside. Rule accordingly is made absolute. No
costs.
9. In view of disposal of Writ Petition,
the Civil Application also stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(K.L.WADANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp2705.15
