Kailash S/O Damodarpant Vyavhare ... vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3289 Bom

WP  845/15                                           1                             Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                        WRIT PETITION No. 845/2015

1.    Kailash S/o Damodharpant Vyavhare,
      Age about 27 years, Occupation: Nil,
      R/o Brahmanwada Thadi, Tah. Chandur 
      Bazar, Dist. Amravati.

2.    Vinod Ramesh Amrute,
      Aged about 33 years, Occupation: Nil,
      R/o Brahmanwada Thadi, Tah. Chandur 
      Bazar, Dist. Amravati.                                                PETITIONERS

                                    .....VERSUS.....

1.    Chief Executive Officer,
      Zilla Parishad, Amravati,
      Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
2.    Block Development Officer,
      Chandur Bazar Panchayat Samitee,
      Tah. Chandur Bazar, Dist. Amravati.

3.    The Sarpanch, Brahmanwada Thadi
      Gram Panchayat, Tah. Chandur Bazar,
      Dist. Amravati.

4.    The Secretary, Brahmanwada Thadi
      Grampanchayat, Tah. Chandur Bazar,
      Dist. Amravati.                                                          RESPONDENTS

                     Shri S.N. Gaikwad, counsel for the petitioners.
                Shri P.A. Kadu, counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
                 Shri P.S. Patil, counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 5.


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

DATE : 16 TH JUNE, 2017.

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

By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the

appointment of the respondent no.5 on the post of Clerk-cum-Recovery

Karkoon.

WP 845/15 2 Judgment

2. As per the advertisement issued by the Gram Panchayat, the

petitioners as well as the respondent no.5 had applied for the post of

clerk-cum-recovery karkoon along with several others. The minimum

qualifications for appointment to the said post was a H.S.S.C. certificate

and a certificate in MS-CIT. The appointee was to receive only an

honourium of Rs.6000/- and the services were temporary. It is the case

of the petitioners that though the petitioners are more qualified than the

respondent no.5, the Gram Panchayat illegally selected and appointed the

respondent no.5 for the said post. It is stated that the respondent no.5

possesses the minimum qualification, i.e. H.S.S.C. certificate and a MS-

CIT certificate. It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 is an Arts Graduate

and the petitioner no.2 is a Commerce Graduate.

3. We are not inclined to interfere with the appointment of the

respondent no.5 in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The appointment was

sought to be made on a post that was clearly temporary and

honourarium was to be paid from the funds of the Gram Panchayat. It

was clearly mentioned in the advertisement that the Gram Panchayat

would take a decision in its meeting in regard to the appointment on the

post that was advertised. It appears that a meeting of the Gram

Panchayat was conducted and in the meeting it was decided unanimously

that the respondent no.5 should be appointed on the post. Merely

because the petitioners possessed higher qualification, they cannot claim

WP 845/15 3 Judgment

the appointment to the post that was advertised on temporary basis, as of

a right. In any case, since we have not stayed the order of the

appointment of the respondent no.5, the respondent no.5 is working in

the said post for nearly three years. In the circumstances of the case, it

would not be proper to interfere with the appointment of the respondent

no.5.

4. Hence, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.

Rule stands discharged.

              JUDGE                                            JUDGE

APTE