Bombay High Court
Ku. Bhagyalaxmi Shivshankar ... vs Municipal Council, Kalmeshwar ... on 23 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2306WP4248.15-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4248 OF 2015
PETITIONERS :- 1) Ku.Bhagyalaxmi Shivshankar Walke, aged
about 35 years, Occ. Service, R/o AT Post
Bramhani Fata, Tah. Kalmeshwar, District
Nagpur.
2) Ku.Bindiya Nemichand Acham, aged about
35 years, Occ. Service, R/o At Post
Bramhani, Navjivan Colony, Plot No.27, Tah.
Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur.
3) Sau.Varsha Ramrao Kubade, aged about 40
years, Occ. SERvice, R/o At Post
Kalmeshwar, Shivaji Ward, Ward No.5,
Kalmeshwar, Tah. Kalmeshwar, District
Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Municipal Council, Kalmeshwar, District
Nagpur, through its Chief Officer.
2) The Collector, Nagpur, District Nagpur.
3) The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
4) The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.Z.Jibhkate, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. R.J.Kankale, counsel for the respondent No.1.
Mrs.Mrunal Naik, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 23.06.2017
2306WP4248.15-Judgment 2/3
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the
advertisement issued by the respondent No.1-municipal council inviting
applications for appointment of teachers on contract basis. The
petitioners have also sought a direction against the respondent No.1-
municipal council to regularise their services.
2. Shri Jibhkate, the learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly
states that a similar issue came up for consideration before this court in
Writ Petition No.4453 of 2015 (Pramod Ghotekar and another v. Head
Master/Principal, Nagar Parishad, Jr. College, Kalmeshar, District Nagpur
and others) and this court had rejected the prayer made by the
petitioners therein, for regularisation. It is submitted that this court had
directed the municipal council to consider the claim of the petitioners in
the said writ petition while making appointment of teachers on regular
basis by relaxing the criteria in respect of age for them.
3. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the judgment reported in 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 667
(Priyadarshini Edu.Trust vs. Ratis Bano, (2011) AIR SCW 1332
(State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty) and 2014 (2) SCALE 262
(Renu vs. Dist.& Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari), it would not be possible
2306WP4248.15-Judgment 3/3
to direct the respondent No.1-municipal council to regularise the
services of the petitioners. The respondent No.1-municipal council
however, cannot replace the petitioners, who are working on contract
basis by appointing teachers on contract basis. The municipal council
could dispense with the services of the petitioners only when the
regular appointments are made. As and when the regular appointments
are made, as per the directions issued by this court in the order dated
14/06/2016 in Writ Petition No.4453 of 2015, the claim of the
petitioners should also be considered.
4. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid and the reasons recorded
in the order dated 14/06/2016 in Writ Petition No.4453 of 2015, the
writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned advertisement is quashed
and set aside. The respondent No.1-municipal council is directed to
continue the petitioners in service till the regular appointments are
made by following the due procedure of selection. When regular
appointments would be made in future, the claim of the petitioners
should also be considered by the respondent No.1-municipal council
along with others, in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the
aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
