Sindhu Kisanrao More And ANR v. The State Of Mah And ORS

1 wp 5406.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH

AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5406 OF 2013 Sindhu Kisanrao More and another .. Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri Dattatray H. Jadhavar, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri K. G. Patil, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri S. B. Ghute, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM :

S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND V. L ACHLIYA, JJ.

DATE :

25TH FEBRUARY, 2015.

PER COURT :

.

Mr. Kedar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact the petitioners are working as Health Workers since long. Earlier writ petition was only for regularization. The Zilla Parishad filed affidavit stating that they would consider case for regularization. In the contempt petition also the stand of the Zilla Parishad was same. The learned counsel submits that, the Zilla Parishad interviewed 22 such candidates and issued appointment orders in favour of 10 camdodates. According to the learned counsel because of negligence of Zilla Parishad, the petitioners are not regularized. Ten similarly situated Health Workers have been given appointment on permanent basis. According to the learned counsel the Zilla Parishad has to abide by the affidavit filed by it. Still the vacancies are available and the respondent/Zilla Parishad shall consider the petitioners to appoint

2 wp 5406.13 permanently on the vacant post. The petitioners possess all necessary eligibility criteria and qualification.

2.

Mr. Ghute, the learned counsel submits that, the respondent/Zilla Parishad has to abide by the Government Resolution dated 07.06.2004 wherein petitioners are required to undergo selection process and cannot be given direct appointment. According to the learned counsel the Zilla Parishad had moved proposal with the Government as to whether petitioners can be absorbed, the Government rejected the said proposal.

3.

We have considered submissions canvassed by learned counsel for respective parties. It would not be possible for this Court to consider the case of the petitioners as made out and grant relief. 4.

However, if the petitioners so choose, they may file comprehensive representation with the respondent/zilla parishad, which representation would be considered by the Zilla Parishad on its own merits in accordance with law and policy expeditiously. The writ petition accordingly is disposed of. No costs. [ V. L ACHLIYA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Feb. 15