Nivrutti Bankatrao Rajput vs The State Of Mah & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 7101 Bom

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO.12 OF 2007 

Nivrutti s/o Bankatrao Rajput,
Age : 41 years, Occu.: Government 
Service, at present working as 
Junior Care Taker with Government 
Girls' Bal Gruha, Paithan, 
District Aurangabad, 
R/o : Government Quarter, 
Civil Court Premises, Paithan, 
Taluka ; Paithan, 
District : Aurangabad            ..  PETITIONER
                                     (Ori. Applicant)

       VERSUS


1)     The State of Maharashtra,
       through the Secretary,
       Department of Women & Child, 
       Development, M.S., Mantralaya,
       Mumbai - 32

2)     The Commissioner,
       Women & Child Development,
       M.S., Pune - 1

3)     The Project Officer,
       Women & Child Development,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

4)     The District Women & Child
       Development Officer,
       Aurangabad

5)     The Government Girl's Bal Gruha,
       Paithan, Taluka : Paithan,
       District : Aurangabad           .. RESPONDENTS
                                       (Original Non-
                                       Applicants)




     ::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017            ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:26:04 :::
                                              2                               wp12-2017


                          ----
Mr. Avinash S. Deshmukh, advocate holding for 
Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, advocate the petitioner
Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the respondents
                          ----

                                       CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND
                                               SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 13th SEPTEMBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned A.G.P. for the respondents.

2. Petitioner purports to take exception to the

order dated 4th April, 2006, passed by the Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad

("Tribunal", for short) in Original Application No.1020

of 2005.

3. Petitioner claims the post of a driver by

promotion on the basis of the Driver of Motor Cars and

Jeeps in Government Offices (Recruitment) Rules, 1980,

particularly, Rule 2 (a) thereof providing for the same

for those who are members of staff in Class-IV

Government Service and who possess qualifications and

experience mentioned in sub-clauses (ii), (iii), (v) and

3 wp12-2017

(vi) of clause (c) of said Rules.

4. The Tribunal has held that there has been a

policy decision of the State Government, which has been

reflected in the Government Resolution dated 10th

September, 2001, quoting its relevant extract had

considered that it was not possible to give direction to

consider case of the applicant (present petitioner) for

promotion to the post of driver. The extract referred to

above reads, thus,

^^¼v½ okgu pkydkaph fjDr gks.kkjh ins HkjY;koj fucZa/k rlsp vfrfjDr Bj.kk&;k okgu pkydkaps O;oLFkkiu-

¼1½ in Hkjrh laca/kkrhy loZlk/kkj.k 'kkldh; /kksj.kkP;k vuq"kaxkus dks.kR;kgh dkj.kkLro fjDr >kysY;k okgupkydkaph ins Hkj.;kar ;sÅ u;sr- vioknkRed ifjfLFkrhr lqn~/kk okgu pkydkaps in eatwj dsys tk.kkj ukgh o uohu fdaok fjDr in Hkj.;kr ;s.kkj ukgh-**

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been

in a position to point out that subsequently there has

been any change in the policy. It is not a case that the

petitioner alone has been singled out. Thus, the order

passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference.

In the set of these circumstances, there does not appear

to be any merit in the writ petition calling for

exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court.

4 wp12-2017

The writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to

costs.

     [SANGITRAO S. PATIL]             [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH]
             JUDGE                            JUDGE

 
npj/wp12-2017