Bombay High Court
Govind Sakharam Lamture vs Shri. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru ... on 11 August, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
lpa266.07 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2007
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 667 OF 2005
Govind Sakharam Lamture,
aged about 33 years,
occupation - Service, c/o
Shri Madhusudan Natkar at
Gautam Nagar, Bhayya Saheb
Hall, Parbhani, District -
Parbhani. ... APPELLANT
Versus
1. Shri Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru,
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Nagrala, Tq. Rajura through
its Secretary at Gadchandur
Tq. Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur.
2. Head Master,
Bharat Ratna Rajiv Gandhi
Prathamik Ashram School,
Shengaon, Tq. Jiwati,
District - Chandrapur.
3. Special District Social Welfare
Officer, Chandrapur.
4. Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, AGP for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
.....
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2017 01:48:56 :::
lpa266.07 2
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
AUGUST 11, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Shri Shende, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel for respondent
Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri Ghodeswar, learned AGP for respondent
Nos. 3 & 4, for some time.
2. The learned Single judge has on humanitarian
ground taken a particular view of the matter. The punishment
imposed by the authority conducting D.Ed. Examination has
been found to bar the employer from proceeding in
Departmental Enquiry against the appellant. No relief of
reinstatement was granted but as the petitioner had worked
from 1996 and acquired D.Ed. qualification, a direction to
absorb him has been given to respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, therefore, must take his name in the
waiting list and provide him employment.
3. Shri Ghodeswar, learned AGP has invited our
attention to communication dated 16.01.2007 sent by
respondent No. 3 to the advocate then representing the
appellant. It has been explained therein that no post was
vacant.
4. It is difficult to accept that after judgment delivered
by the learned Single Judge on 11.10.2006 in Writ Petition No.
667 of 2005, there has not been a single vacancy.
5. Shri Shende, learned counsel submits that as
termination was set aside, reinstatement ought to have been
allowed. The submission cannot be accepted. The learned
Single judge then has found that vacancy was not available
with the employer of the petitioner. This finding and approach
cannot be said to be erroneous.
6. We, therefore, grant the appellant leave to make
appropriate representation to Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 within a
period of three weeks from today. If such a representation is
made, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 shall attempt to provide
appropriate placement against available vacancy to the
petitioner in next two months. It is made clear that the
appellant can also point out the vacancies, if the same are
within his knowledge.
7. With this direction, we dispose of the present
Letters Patent Appeal. However, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
