Bombay High Court
Manohar Baliram Jambhulkar & 11 ... vs Collector, Bhandara & Another on 5 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp2364.97.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2364/1997
PETITIONERS : 1. Manohar s/o Baliram Jambhulkar,
aged about 46 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Murri, Tah - Gondia, Dist - Bhandara.
2. Maidanshain s/o Tikaram Badge,
aged about 46 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o old Gondia, Ghandhiward, Gondia,
Dist - Bhandara.
3. Lakhanlal s/o Harichand Limkar,
aged about 41 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Nawargaon (Khurd) Post - Nawargaon (Kala),
Tah - Gondia, Dist - Bhandara.
4. Nandkishore s/o Ramaji Bhivgade,
aged about 43 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Civil Lines, Gondia, Dist - Bhandara.
5. Chandraprakash s/o Atmaram Dhumbare,
aged about 41 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Kati (Birsola), Tah - Gondia, Dist - Bhandara.
6. Vijaysingh s/o Bhagwansingh Suryawanshi,
aged about 41 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Ganeshnagar, near Ganeshmandir, Gondia,
Dist - Bhandara.
7. Mukunda s/o Nagoji Dorle,
aged about 42 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Manegaon, Tah - Sakoli, Dist - Bhandara.
8. Namdeo s/o Pandurang Girhepunje,
aged about 44 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Lakhani Ward No.5, Tah - Sakoli, Dist.
Bhandara.
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:58 :::
wp2364.97.odt
2
9. Dewaji s/o Dashrath Wadhai,
aged about 42 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Gondegaon, Post - Gurdha, Tah - Lakhandur,
Dist - Bhandara.
10. Maniram s/o Ramaji Mahture,
aged about 44 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Lakhani, Post - Lakhani,
Tah - Sakoli, Dist. - Bhandara.
11. Khushal s/o Bajirao Kharabe,
aged about 42 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Seloti, Post - Seloti, Tah. - Sakoli,
Dist - Bhandara.
12. Vishwasrao s/o Rupchand Kshirsagar,
aged about 43 years, Occ - Unemployed
r/o Khursipar Tola, Post - Chirchadbandh,
Tah - Goregaon, Dist - Bhandara.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Collector, Bhandara, Dist - Bhandara.
2. The State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 05.06.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction against
the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment
wp2364.97.odt
by quashing and setting aside the impugned order refusing to grant the
appointment to the petitioners.
The petitioners had worked in the temporary vacancies that
arose when the Government employees went on strike on the eve of
election to the legislative assembly in the year 1977-78. Basing their claim
for appointment on Strike Period Recruitment Rules, 1978 that granted
some concession and facilities to the persons that had worked when the
regular employees were on strike, the petitioners claimed for their
appointment. By the Government decision, the age limit in case of
candidates in general category for the purpose of appointment was
relaxed up to 40 years and in the case of backward classes up to 45 years.
According to the petitioners, they were called for the interview but were
not appointed though they were selected. The petitioners and several
others therefore filed separate original applications before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the
applications filed by the petitioners and the other similarly situated
persons and directed the Collector to consider the claim of the petitioners
for their employment in Class-III or Class-IV services, if there are
vacancies in the said posts. In pursuance of the directions issued by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners were called along
with the other employees that had filed the original applications.
wp2364.97.odt
According to the petitioners, though several other employees were
appointed in Class-III and Class-IV posts the claim of the petitioners was
rejected on the ground that the petitioners were age barred.
On hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondents and on a perusal of the documents annexed to the
petition, it appears that the relief sought by the petitioners in this writ
petition cannot be granted. All the petitioners had admittedly crossed the
age of 40 years at the time of filing of the petition as could be reflected
from the cause title. The petitioners were more than 40 years of age at the
time of filing of the petition. More than 20 years have lapsed from the
date of filing of the petition and the petitioners must have crossed the age
of 60. Some of the petitioners may be aged about 64 and 66, as could be
gauged from the copy of the petition. If that be so, it would not be
appropriate to consider granting the relief to the petitioners by directing
the Collector to consider the claim of the petitioners for their appointment
in Class-III and Class-IV posts. The writ petition is filed in the year 1997.
The cause for filing the writ petition is rendered infructuous due to
passage of time as the petitioners were never appointed during the
pendency of the proceedings by granting any interim relief and the
petitioners are not appointed by the Collector till date. If that is so and if
the petitioners have surpassed the age of superannuation the claim of the
wp2364.97.odt
petitioners for appointment in Class-III and Class-IV services cannot be
considered.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no
order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
