Nanasaheb Maruti Kolape vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 949 Bom

k                                  1/3                 33 wp 2961.21 os.doc




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                    WRIT PETITION NO.2961 OF 2021

Nanasaheb Maruti Kolape                                 ....Petitioner
       V/S
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.          ....Respondents
                                     ...
Mr. Chintamani K. Bhangoji for the Petitioner.
Ms. Rupali Adhate for Respondents-Corporation.
Mrs. Kshitija Kandarkar, Joint Labour Officer, Labour Department, present in
Court.
                                     ...
                                CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                          SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 30 JANUARY 2023.

P.C.:

1 The Petitioner is challenging the communication dated 2 nd August

2019 issued by Respondent No.2 thereby rejecting the claim of the

Petitioner for absorbing the Petitioner on the post of Labour.

2 The learned Counsel submits that the selection process was

conducted by the Respondents for the post of Labour in the year 2009.

Written examination was held the Petitioner answered all questions

correctly. Some malpractice was committed by third persons. Wherever the

correct answer was given the Petitioner has signed below it. In question

No.16 the Petitioner had answered option (b) correctly and had signed

below it. Somebody had encircled option (c) but no signature was put below

that. The answer (b) was correct, (c) was encircled by some other person

k 2/3 33 wp 2961.21 os.doc

malpractice was committed. The Respondent subsequently conducted an

enquiry against the teacher involved in the said case. He was held guilty. In

enquiry it was also found that the Petitioner is not responsible for encircling

option (c) for question No.16 and recommendation was also given to

consider the Petitioner for appointment under the communication dated 16 th

August 2014.

3 According to the learned Counsel a similarly situated person had filed

Writ Petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.2477 of 2014. This

Court under judgment and order dated 10th December 2018 directed the

Respondents to consider the said Petitioner. Pursuant thereto the

Respondents took a decision and has appointed said person. According to

the learned Counsel the Petitioner in the year 2011 had given

representation to the Respondents bringing to the notice of the

Respondents that he had answered correctly and he should get 100 out of

100 marks and such he could be considered for appointment. The

endorsement was made that the same would be considered after the

decision is given in Writ Petition No.2477 of 2014 by the Court.

Subsequently the decision has been given the Respondents ought to have

considered the cause of the Petitioner only because the wait list has lapsed

that could not come in the way of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is

representing with the Authority since the year 2011.

                         k                                  3/3                  33 wp 2961.21 os.doc




                        4     It appears in the Affidavit filed by the Respondents that after the

selection process was conducted in the year 2009 appointments were

made and subsequently fresh selection processes were conducted in the

year 2016 and also in the year 2017. The select list and the wait list of the

selection process of the year 2016 and 2017 also lapsed.

5 The Petitioner has approached this Court only in the year 2020. The

Petitioner did not approach the Court at the earliest. It appears from the

answer sheet placed by the Petitioner that the Petitioner has encircled (b)

as an option for question No.16 and signed below it. However, it also

appears that (c) is also encircled, no signature appears below that.

6 It would be a matter of investigation as to who has encircled option

(c ) for question No.16.

7 The Petitioner is almost 47 years of age. He has crossed the upper

age limit. The selection process of the year 2009. Fresh selection process

has been conducted for the said post in the year 2016 and in the year 2017.

It would be too late in the day now to consider the case of the Petitioner.

8 In light of the above, no further orders can be passed in the Writ

Petition. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM

RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date:

2023.01.31 19:25:43 +0530