Vilas Sudamrao Ingole v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1) WP No. 9577/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9577 OF 2017 Hanmant Gangadharrao Kokane & ors.

Petitioners.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others.

Respondents.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10833 OF 2017 Vilas Sudamrao Ingole.

Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others.

Respondents.

*** Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for State/respondent No.1 to 3. Mr. I.D. Maniyar, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5. *** CORAM :

S.V. GANGAPURWALA & SUNIL K. KOTWAL,JJ.

Dated :

25th July, 2018.

FINAL ORDER :- .

We have heard Mr. Panpatte, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Deshmukh, learned A.G.P. The facts as narrated by the petitioner can be tabulated as under :-

(2) WP No. 9577/2017 Sr.

Name of Category Date of appln. for permission Date of Appl.

submitte Date of appointDate of submissDate of rejection and post No.

Petitioners Advt.

d to employment w.e.f.

ion of proposal to Resp.

of approval.

ment office for No.4.

sending list of eligible candidat es 6.6.2013 20.6.2013 10.6.2013 1.7.2013 16.8.2013 24.4.2017 Hanmant Gangadharra o Kokane N.T.

Sk.Sevak 7.7.2013 19.7.2013 8.7.2013 1.8.2013 16.8.2013 24.4.2017 Sandeep Pandhari Gunturkar S.C.

Sk.Sevak 7.7.2013 19.7.2013 8.7.2013 1.8.2013 16.8.2013 24.4.2017 Jaishree Shankar Choudhari O.B.C.

Sk.Sevak Lab.Astt.

10.2.2014 18.2.2014 8..3.2014 1.3.2014 5.3.2014 24.4.2017 Sayyad Jalil Mastansab Open Sk.Sevak Hindi 7.8.2014 20.8.2014 10.8.2014 1.9.2014 15.9.2014 24.4.2017 Sanjay Ramrao Rathod Open Sk.Sevak English 29.12.2016 16.1.2014 1.2.2017 17.7.2017 19.8.2017 Vilas Sudamrao Ingole Open Sk.Sevak 2.

According to the respondents, the applications were given by the petitioners seeking permission to fill in the post. The petitioners have produced on record information received to them under Right to Information Act. According to the respondents, handwriting in the inward register appears to be different. 3.

It is further observed that in the roster backlog is not shown. According to the petitioners, the same is incorrect. The correct roster is produced and backlog is shown.

(3) WP No. 9577/2017 4.

It would appear from the impugned order that the proposal for approval is rejected basically on the ground that the backlog is not shown in the roster. The permission is not taken from the office for filling in the post and giving advertisement. The appointments are not made by issuing advertisement in the newspapers. There are surplus candidates. The proposal is not routed through the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare. 5.

According to the petitioners, the proposal was given through the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare. 6.

It appears that there are conflicting claims made by the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners in the present matters have produced on record the application which they claimed to have given seeking permission to fill in the post and so also claimed to have given the applications to the Employment Office for sending the names of eligible candidates.

7.

It would be appropriate for the Authority to consider the record produced by the petitioner and the clarifications given by the petitioners with regard to the roster and thereafter take decision afresh.

8.

The petitioners shall produce the entire record regarding the roster, existence of backlog, the applications given seeking permissions and thereafter the Authority shall take decision

(4) WP No. 9577/2017 afresh on its own merits after considering the record. 9.

If it finds the availability of backlog and the applications being given, then, the proposal shall not be rejected only on the ground that there are surplus candidates to be absorbed. The petitioners and the Institution may appear before the Authority with the entire record on 27th August 2018. Thereafter the Authority shall consider the record and take decision afresh, preferably within three

(03) months thereafter. While doing so, the impugned order would not be an impediment.

10.

Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.

( SUNIL K. KOTWAL) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE vdd ***