Bombay High Court
Subhash Govardhan Rathod vs Urban Development Department ... on 27 February, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp3745.05.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3745/2005
PETITIONER: Subhash Govardhan Rathod,
Aged Major, working as Teacher in
Municipal Council School, Karanja, District
Washim.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Urban Development Department
through its Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Commissioner, Amravati Division
Amravati (Regional Director of Municipal
Administration).
3. Collector, Washim (Chairman, District Selection
Committee), District Washim.
4. Municipal Council, Karanja, through
its Chief Officer.
5. Employment Exchange Officer,
Employment Exchange Office, Akola.
6. Regional Director of Municipal Administration,
Amravati.
(Amended as per Court's order dt. 27.2.17)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.D. Karode, Advocate for petitioner
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 & 5
Shri D.M. Surjuse with Shri G.G. Mishra, Advocates for respondent no.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 27.02.2017
wp3745.05.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioner has sought a direction against
the respondent to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on
the post of Assistant Teacher in the respondent - Municipal Council.
It is stated that though the petitioner's name was not
recommended by the District Selection Committee due to the backlog of
appointees in the reserved category, it appears that the cases of three
others were considered favourably by the Regional Director of Municipal
Administration (R.D.M.A.) and their services were approved. The petition
was filed in the year 2005 and we had granted status quo in the matter. In
view of the order of status quo, the petitioner continued to work on the
post of Assistant Teacher in the respondent - Municipal Council. There is
nothing on record to show that the name of the petitioner was not
recommended as the petitioner did not possess the requisite
qualifications. It appears from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the
respondent that there was a backlog in some reserved category and
therefore, the petitioner's name was not recommended by the Selection
Committee. The petitioner is working with the respondent - Municipal
Council as an Assistant Teacher during the pendency of the writ petition
for 12 years. The petitioner was appointed as early as in the year 1998. In
wp3745.05.odt
this background, without considering the other aspects of the matter,
specially in the absence of any reply pointing out as to why the
petitioner's name was not recommended by the Selection Committee to
the R.D.M.A., it would be necessary to dispose of this writ petition with a
direction to the R.D.M.A. to consider the claim of the petitioner for
regularization of his services as the petitioner is working for almost 20
years with the respondent - Municipal Council and the name of the
petitioner was recommended by the Municipal Council to the Selection
Committee. Since there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner
was not qualified to hold the post, in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case and in the interest of justice, it would be necessary to dispose
of the writ petition with a direction to the Regional Director of Municipal
Administration to consider granting approval to the services of the
petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher, if the petitioner is otherwise
qualified to hold the post. The Regional Director of Municipal
Administration should take a decision in the matter at the earliest and in
any case within four months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
