Ku.Lata Narayan Daf vs Addl.Commissioner & ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 67 Bom

                                               1                wp424.2002.odt

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 424/2002

 Ku. Lata Narayanrao Daf,
 about Aged 45 yrs, Occ. Service
 R/o Gomaji Ward, Hinganghat, 
 Distt. Wardha                                      ..... PETITIONER


                               ...V E R S U S...


 1] Add. Commissioner & Regional
    Director Municipal Administration
    Nagpur

 2] Municipal Council, Hinganghat
    Through its Chief Officer, 
    Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha

 3] Principal, New Municipal Higher
    Secondary School & Junior College

 4] Education Officer, Zilla Parishad,
    (Secondary) Wardha                              ... RESPONDENTS

 ===================================
     Miss Sangeeta Jachak, AGP for the respondent no. 1
      Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for the respondent no. 4
 ===================================

                                           CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.

th DATED :- 4 JANUARY, 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

None appeared for the petitioner on 12/07/2017,

09/08/2017, 15/12/2017,18/12/2017 and 20/12/2017. Today

2 wp424.2002.odt

also, none appeared for the petitioner and the respondent nos. 2

and 3.

Heard Miss Sangeeta Jachak, AGP for the respondent

no. 1 and Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for the respondent no. 4. With

the assistance of the learned AGPs, I have examined the

documents placed on record of the writ petition.

2] The petitioner claims that she was appointed as an

Assistant Teacher in the school administered by the respondent no.

2-Municipal Council, by the administrator by order dated

09/08/1984 and though her appointment was made properly and

the respondent no. 4-Education Officer had granted approval to

her appointment on 17/01/1985, her services were illegally

terminated by the order dated 18/04/1985, the termination being

effective from the last day of the academic session 1984-1985.

3] After examining the documents on record of the

petition, I find that the petitioner has not been able to show that

her appointment was made as per the prescribed procedure. There

is nothing on record to show that the post in which the petitioner

was appointed, was advertised. The learned Additional

3 wp424.2002.odt

Commissioner has recorded in the impugned order that the

documents which were produced before him show that the

petitioner was interviewed by a committee of nine officers of the

respondent no. 2-Municipal Council comprising of the

Administrator, Chief Officer, two Headmasters, four Assistant

Teachers and an Administrative Officer. It is recorded that the

officer from Social Welfare And Tribal Development Department

was not invited for conducting the interview, as required under

the instructions issued by the Director of Municipal

Administration. The learned Additional Commissioner has

recorded that the documents produced before him show that six

posts of Assistant Teachers were sanctioned and the petitioner was

the 7th candidate to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher. It is

observed by the learned Additional Commissioner that the

petitioner has failed to show that the 7th post in which the

petitioner was appointed was sanctioned.

4] There is nothing on record of this writ petition on the

basis of which it can be said that the conclusions of the learned

Additional Commissioner suffer from any illegality or perversity

which necessitates interference by this Court in the extra-ordinary

4 wp424.2002.odt

jurisdiction.

In view of the above, Rule is discharged. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Ansari