Bombay High Court
Pramod Hemraj Wath vs The Deputy Director, Vocational ... on 4 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 WP.3019.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3019 OF 2002.
Pramod s/o Hemraj Wath,
Aged about 29 years,
Occupation : Service,
Resident of C/o Dnyaneshwar
Medical Stores, Plot No. 11,
Jagnade Square, Nandanwan,
Nagpur. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] The Deputy Director,
Vocational Education & Training,
Link Road, Sadar, Nagpur,
2] The District Vocational Education
and Training Officer, Civil Lines,
Nagpur,
3] The Principal, Dinanath Junior
College and High School, Dhantoli,
Nagpur-440012,
4] Bengali Education Society,
Dhantoli, Nagpur, through
its Secretary. ...... RESPONDENTS.
Mr. Jitendra Matale, Advocate h/f Mr. R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for
petitioner.
Ms. A.R. Kulkarni, A.G.P. for respondent no. 1.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 4, 2018.
2 WP.3019.02
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
, J.)
1] The facts show that the employer of petitioner, i.e.
respondent nos. 2 & 3 received permission dated 12.2.1999 from
respondent no.1 to fill in the post and accordingly, they immediately
issued advertisement on 13.5.1999. In response to the selection
process conducted, appointment order was issued to petitioner on
10.1.2000. The appointment order was in purely temporary capacity.
Proposal was submitted for approval and it was sent back on
11.4.2000 by respondent no.2. Major objection raised is about lack of
experience. The proposal was resubmitted and respondent nos. 3 &
4 pointed out their minority status and also submitted that petitioner
was duly qualified. It appears that on 20.8.2001 again proposal was
sent back. However, at that juncture no objection on the ground of
absence of experience was raised. On 12.6.2002 sanction has been
refused by inviting attention to the policy decision of Government
dated 29.6.2000. By said policy decision, State Government did not
permit recruitment on posts which were lying vacant in excess of six
months prior to 29.2.2000. It is in this backdrop that petitioner has
approached this Court.
2] This Court has on 27.8.2002 issued Rule on interim relief
3 WP.3019.02
and it appears that petitioner continued in services of respondent nos.
3 & 4. On 29.10.2002 after hearing all concerned, this Court issued
Rule in the matter and then observed that respondent nos. 3 & 4 will
be entitled to reimbursement of salary paid to petitioner.
3] Ms. A.R. Kulkarni, learned A.G.P. for respondent no. 1,
has invited our attention to reply affidavit filed before this Court.
Reply affidavit filed by respondent no.1 shows that because of above-
mentioned policy decision dated 29.6.2000, the recruitment effected
was found unsustainable and, therefore, sanction was refused.
However, learned A.G.P. has also produced before us a
communication dated 29.9.2017 sent by office of respondent no.1
informing the office of Government Pleader that petitioner has been
regularized from 18.3.2005 and is also paid salary regularly from that
date. This communication is taken on record as Exh. 'X'. The
learned Counsel for petitioner is seeking time to obtain instructions
about this communication. However, in present situation we are not
inclined to adjourn the matter. Copy of Exh. 'X' is also given to the
learned Counsel for petitioner.
4] Here the advertisement was published on 13.5.1999 and
permission was given on 12.2.1999. Appointment has also been
4 WP.3019.02
made on 10.1.2000. Thus, everything was over before policy
decision dated 29.6.2000. Hence, policy decision dated 29.6.2000
could not have been issued to deny approval to the employment of
petitioner.
5] However, now that said approval has been granted on
29.9.2017 vide Exh. X, we need not delve more into the controversy.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by
recognising services only from 18.3.2005, earlier service put in by
petitioner has been wiped out. Learned A.G.P. has submitted that
there appears to be some dispute abut experience at that juncture.
6] In this situation, we find that interest of justice can be met
with by permitting the petitioner to make appropriate representation in
this respect to office of respondent no.2. If such representation is
made within period of four weeks from today, office of respondent
no.2 shall hear the petitioner, his employer and thereafter find out
whether approval granted with effect from 18.3.2005 can be granted
from initial date of entry or any other date prior to 18.3.2005. This
decision shall be taken within next four months.
5 WP.3019.02
7] With these directions, we partly allow Writ Petition and
dispose it of. No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
