Wednesday, 22, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ambhore Vinod Dutta vs The State Of Mahrashtra And Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 450 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 450 Bom
Judgement Date : 3 March, 2017

Bombay High Court
Ambhore Vinod Dutta vs The State Of Mahrashtra And Others on 3 March, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
                                                              W.P.No.1625/16
                                        1


                    IN THE HIGH COURT  AT BOMBAY
                APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   WRIT PETITION NO. 1625 OF 2016  

1.     Ambhore Vinod Dutta,
       Age 29 years, Occu. Nil,
       R/o. Hiwarpen, Tq. Risod,
       District - Washim.                           ....Petitioner.

               Versus

1.     The State of Maharashtra
       Through The Secretary
       Rural Welfare and Panchayat
       Raj Department, Mantralaya,
       Mumbai.

2.     The Collector/President,
       District Selection Committee,
       Beed, Tq. Beed, District Beed.

3.     Chief Executive Officer,
       Zilla Parishad, Beed,
       Tq. Beed, District Beed.

4.     Deputy Director,
       Health Services (Malaria, Filaria,
       WAterborn) Pune.                ....Respondents.


Mr. Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4.
Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
                                CORAM   :  T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                           SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATED : March 3, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By

W.P.No.1625/16

consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

2) The petition is filed for giving direction

to respondent No. 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla

Parishad, Beed for giving the appointment to the

petitioner on the post of Health Worker, Zilla

Parishad, Beed in pursuance of advertisement dated

22.8.2014.

3) This Court has carefully gone through he

advertisement and the advertisement shows that it was

necessary for the petitioner/applicant to show that

he has the experience of 90 days in respect of the

work mentioned in the advertisement and the

experience was obtained as temporary employee. The

nature of work mentioned in the advertisement about

experience is necessary as such work was available

with Zilla Parishad. The petitioner produced the

certificate issued by Zilla Parishad, Washim to show

that he has experience of 90 days of such work and he

was appointed on temporary basis in that Zilla

Parishad. The petitioner had applied from reserved

W.P.No.1625/16

category, Scheduled Caste (S.C.) and he could have

been appointed as he got cleared through the process.

When the verification of the experience was

attempted, it was informed to respondent - Zilla

Parishad, Beed by Zilla Parishad, Washim that he was

on their list of temporary employees and he had

worked for different periods. The periods were given

in the correspondence.

4) Now, it is the contention of respondent No.

3 that the appointment of the petitioner as temporary

employee in Zilla Parishad, Washim was itself

illegal. It can be said that respondent No. 3 is not

entitled to raise such contention as the petitioner

was appointed by issuing appointment order and he was

expected to work as temporary worker, on daily wages.

In view of nature of advertisement, if it is possible

for the petitioner to show that he had necessary

experience on the date of advertisement, it is

necessary for the respondent No. 3 to give him

appointment, if there is no other hurdle in giving

him appointment.

W.P.No.1625/16

5) It appears that this Court, other Bench, in

the past had directed on 15.4.2017 to add Deputy

Director of Health Services, Pune as party respondent

and the Deputy Director was expected to file reply.

In view of the aforesaid nature of dispute, this

Court holds that it is not necessary to hear Deputy

Director, Health Services, Pune. The petitioner is

expected to show that he has necessary experience as

per the advertisement and he has fulfilled this

condition. In view of aforesaid circumstances, this

Court holds that respondent No. 3 - Chief Executive

Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed needs to be directed to

give appointment to the petitioner on the post of

Health Worker, if there is no other hurdle in giving

him appointment.

6) In the result, the petition is allowed. The

respondents are hereby directed to give appointment

to the petitioner on the post of Health Worker in

accordance with the advertisement which was published

on 22.8.2014, if there is no other hurdle in giving

W.P.No.1625/16

him appointment.

Rule is made absolute in those terms.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

ssc/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter