Smt. Kanchan Shivaji Raje vs Ld. Commissioner And Registrar, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7629 Bom

     jdk                                                 1                                              1.cwp.11330.16.j.doc

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 W.P. NO. 11330 OF 2016

    Smt. Kanchan Shivaji Raje                                                       ]
    Age 44 years, Occ: Service                                                      ]
    (Class IV Employee), R/o C/o                                                    ]
    Shri. Dilip T. Gore, Nilkanth Nagar,                                            ]
    Part III, Post : Haripur, Tal. Miraj,                                           ]
    Dist. Sangli                                                                    ].. Petitioner

                        Vs.

    1. Ld. Commissioner and Registrar                                               ]
       Co-Operative Societies,                                                      ]
       Maharashtra State, at Pune                                                   ]
                                                                                    ]
    2. Ld. Divisional Joint Registrar,                                              ]
       Co-operative Societies (Audit)                                               ]
       Mumbai Division, New Mumbai.                                                 ].. Respondents

                                 ....
    Mr. Manoj A. Patil Advocate for Petitioner
    Mr. N.C. Walimbe AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
                                 ....

                        CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
                                DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]:

1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned A.G.P. for the respondents. Rule. By consent, rule is

made returnable forthwith and the matter is finally heard.

2 The petitioner had preferred Original Application No.

225 of 2014 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,

1 of 4

jdk 2 1.cwp.11330.16.j.doc

Bench at Mumbai, in which, the petitioner has sought directions

to appoint her as Sub-Auditor and the order dated 3.12.2013 be

quashed. By the said order, her appointment as Sub-Auditor

came to be cancelled. By order dated 21.9.2015 the Tribunal

dismissed the said Original Application. Being aggrieved

thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

3 The petitioner was working as "Parichar" in the office

of Zilla Parishad, Arajh, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli. She was

appointed on that post on 27.11.2007. That is a Class-IV post.

Pursuant to an advertisement dated 21.2.2007, she applied

through Maharashtra Knowledge Cooperation Limited (MKCL)

for Class-III post of Cooperative Officer, Grade-I and other posts

including that of Sub-Auditor.

4 It is the case of the petitioner that she was issued

appointment letters to the post of Sub-Auditor on 11.12.2008,

28.5.2009 and 23.2.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that

she joined duty on 1.8.2009 at Ratnagiri, however, the record

which is annexed by the petitioner shows otherwise. The

petitioner sent communication by letter dated 1.10.2010 in

2 of 4

jdk 3 1.cwp.11330.16.j.doc

which, she has stated that she could not join the duties on

account of domestic problems. Thereafter, there is another

letter on record dated 26.11.2012 by the petitioner in which,

again she has stated that she cannot join the duties on account

of domestic problems. Thus, the letters of the petitioner

themselves show that she had not joined her duties. It is seen

that from time to time the petitioner had made correspondence

with the concerned department stating that she cannot join her

duty on account of domestic problems.

5 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

there was no time limit mentioned in the appointment orders

wherein she had to join the duties. No doubt, in the letter of

appointments the period in which she must join the duties was

not stated, but, this time period has to be a reasonable time

period and it cannot be said that till eternity the petitioner can

join the duty at any point of time. From the letters of the

petitioner, it is clear that she herself did not join the duties on

account of domestic problems. On account of not joining duty,

the appointment of the petitioner came to be cancelled.

6 The plain issue is that mere order of appointment

does not give vested right to the petitioner if pursuant thereto,

3 of 4

jdk 4 1.cwp.11330.16.j.doc

she did not join duties within a reasonable period of time. The

post cannot be kept vacant for an indefinite period. Admittedly,

the petitioner is still working as "Parichar" in Zilla Parishad in

Dist. Sangli. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that in fact, the petitioner has joined duties as Sub-Auditor on

1.8.2009. It is not understood how the petitioner could have

joined duties on the post of Sub-Auditor when she still continues

to work as "Parichar" in Zilla Parishad even till today. This

infact, clearly shows that the petitioner did not join the duties

and from her various communications, it is clear that she has

sought time to join duties. This supports the contention of the

respondent that petitioner had never joined duty as sub-auditor.

The Tribunal has taken into consideration all these facts and

thereafter, dismissed the Original Application.

7 Looking to the facts of this case and the reasons

stated in the order of the Tribunal, no interference is called for,

hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI,J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

kandarkar

4 of 4