Devidas S/O Ananda Ingole v. Zilla Parishad, Washim Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Washim And Another

1301wp4666.15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4666/2015 Devidas son of Ananda Ingole ...Versus...

Zilla Parishad, Washim through its Chief Executive Officer, Washim, District Washim and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.S. Dhore, Advocate for petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : 13.01.2016 By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the respondent no.2, Education Officer - Zilla Parishad, Washim rejecting the representation of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Shikshan Sevak.

The petitioner is seeking appointment on the post of Shikshan Sevak in pursuance of an advertisement issued in the year 2000, as the petitioner had applied for the said post. According to the petitioner, the candidature of the petitioner was wrongly rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified as he had secured the degree from Sagar University. According to the petitioner, the degree secured from the Sagar University before 14.6.1999 could have been considered by the respondent - Zilla Parishad as a valid degree-qualification. Since

1301wp4666.15.odt the petitioner had made a representation to the Zilla Parishad, by the impugned communication dated 22.12.2014 the petitioner was informed that his representation cannot be favourably considered as the same was made belatedly after a period of eleven years from the date of appointments.

We do not find any illegality whatsoever in the action on the part of the Education Officer in rejecting the representation made by the petitioner after a period of more than thirteen years from the date of advertisement. If the petitioner was not appointed in pursuance of the advertisement and if the petitioner was of the view that he was eligible for appointment as he was duly qualified, the petitioner ought to have approached this Court within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar