Shrikrushna Vishnupant Girbile vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Higher ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2918 Bom

WP  5775/13                                            1                            Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 5775/2013
Shrikrushna Vishnupant Girbile,
Aged about 50 years, Occ.Library attendant,
R/o Yeshwantrao Chavan Arts & Science
College Mangrulpir, Tq. Mangrulpir,
Distt. Washim.                                                                 PETITIONER

                                     .....VERSUS.....
1.    The State of Maharashtra,
      Through Higher and Technical Education Department,
      through its Secretary,
      Mantralaya Extn., Mumbai-400 0032.

2.    Joint Director of Higher Education,
      Amravati Division,
      In the premises of Shashakiya
      Vidarbha Dyan Vidhyalaya Sanstha,
      Amravati.

3.    Principal,
      Yeshwantrao Chavan Arts & Science
      Mahavidyalaya, Mangrulpir, Distt. Washim.

4.    Sh.Motiramji Thakre Shikshan
      Prasarak Mandal, Kasola,
      Tq.Mangrulpir, Distt. Washim.

5.    Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University,
      through its Vice Chancellor,
      Amravati.                                                                 RESPONDENTS

                      Shri S.A. Marathe, counsel for the petitioner.
      Mrs. H.Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
Shri S.R. Ghatole, Advocate holding for Shri F.T. Mirza, counsel for the respondent nos.3
                                         and 4.

                                      CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                    A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.                  

                                                              8                  JUNE,     2017.
                                       DATE        :            TH



ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that he

is entitled for relaxation of the criterion of age by virtue of the

Government Resolution, dated 15.09.2011 as he was initially appointed

WP 5775/13 2 Judgment

on 01.07.1996 in the school run by the same society in which he was later

appointed on a permanent post in the year 1998. The petitioner seeks a

direction against the State Government to consider the claim of the

petitioner for relaxation of the criterion of age.

The petitioner was appointed as a part time Library Attendant

in a school run by the respondent no.4-Society on 01.07.1996. The

Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola granted approval to the

appointment of the petitioner by the order, dated 20.09.1996. The

petitioner was appointed as a full time Library Attendant in Yashwantrao

Chavan Arts and Science College, Mangrulpir that is run by the

respondent no.4-Society on 01.01.1998. The pay of the petitioner was

fixed by the education authorities and since the college in which the

petitioner was appointed as a Library Attendant was brought on grant-in-

aid in 2000, the petitioner started receiving the salary from the

Government Exchequer. It is submitted that though the petitioner was

not age barred at the time of his initial appointment in the year 1996, the

respondents refused to grant approval to the appointment of the

petitioner as a full time Librarian in the year 1998 solely on the ground

that the petitioner was barred by age at the relevant time. According to

the petitioner, since he was initially appointed on 01.07.1996 in a school

run by the same society, the services of the petitioner in the said school

should have been considered for considering whether the petitioner was

WP 5775/13 3 Judgment

barred by age at the time of his initial appointment. It is submitted that

the relaxation in the condition of age has been granted to several

employees like the petitioner and by relying on the Government

Resolution, dated 15.09.2001, the claim of the petitioner is wrongly

rejected. It is submitted that the petitioner is working as a Library

Attendant since the year 1996 and grave and irreparable loss could be

caused to the petitioner if his services are not approved, specially when

the petitioner is receiving the salary from the Government Exchequer

from the year 2000. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner has

sought a direction against the State Government to relax the condition of

age, insofar as the appointment of the petitioner in the year 1998 is

considered as the petitioner was initially appointed in the school run by

the same society in the year 1996 and even otherwise the petitioner has a

good case for relaxation.

Shri Ghatole, the learned counsel for the management, school

and the college, has supported the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted

that the petitioner was working in the school run by the management

from 01.07.1996 and is continuously working in the college run by the

management from the year 1998. It is submitted that in the

circumstances of the case, the relief may be granted in favour of the

petitioner.

WP 5775/13 4 Judgment

Mrs.Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the State Government and the other education

authorities, has supported the action of the State Government. It is

submitted that the petitioner appears to have been age barred at the

time of initial appointment on 01.07.1996. It is, however, fairly stated

by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that since the date of

birth of the petitioner is 27.07.1963, the petitioner was less than 33

years of age at the time of his initial appointment. It is submitted that by

placing reliance on the Government Resolution, dated 15.09.2001, the

claim of the petitioner for relaxation of the criterion of age was rightly

rejected.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that

this is a fit case where a direction needs to be issued against the State

Government for considering the claim of the petitioner for relaxation of

the criterion of age at the time of his permanent appointment in the year

1998. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Library

Attendant in the school run by the respondent-Management on

01.07.1996 and approval was also granted to the appointment of the

petitioner in the said school. In 1998, the petitioner was selected and

appointed as a Library Attendant by following the due procedure for

selection. The petitioner is continuously working in the college run by the

respondent-Management from the year 1998 as a Library Attendant. The

WP 5775/13 5 Judgment

petitioner was paid his salary from the Government Exchequer from the

year 2000 when the college was brought on grant-in-aid. In the

circumstances of the case, it would be very unfair on the part of the State

Government and the education authorities not to relax the condition in

regard to the age limit for appointment, specially when the petitioner is

working as a library attendant for more than twenty years and was paid

from the government exchequer since 2000. The petitioner is

continuously working as a Library Attendant in the school and the college

run by the respondent-Management and, hence, a direction needs to be

issued against the State Government to consider relaxing the condition of

age limit in favour of the petitioner. The decision should be taken by the

State Government at the earliest as we find that the petitioner is placed in

a precarious position though he was appointed by following the due

selection procedure and has worked for more than twenty years with the

education society.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The State Government is directed to take a decision in regard

to the relaxation of the criterion of age in respect of the petitioner as early

as possible and positively within four months and further release the

arrears of monetary benefits, in favour of the petitioner, if any, at the

earliest.

WP 5775/13 6 Judgment

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

              JUDGE                                    JUDGE

APTE