Kailash S/O Kawaduji Meshram And Others v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mumbai And Others

2301wp4410.19 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4410 OF 2019 (Kailash s/o Kawaduji Meshram and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others) ________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders Court'

s or Judge'

s orders or directions and Registrar'

s orders.

Shri S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for petitioners. Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1.

Shri U.A. Gosavi, Advocate for respondent no.2. Shri N.S. Rao, Advocate with Shri S.U. Ambagade, Advocate for respondent no.3.

-------- CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 23, 2023 The petitioners, who claim to be project affected persons, have sought a direction to consider their candidature for appointment on the post of Security Guard at the respondent no.2 Department. According to the petitioners, the said Department is in need of Security Guards and persons, who have applied subsequently, have been taken as Security Guards.

2) According to the respondent no.2, recruitment of Security Guards is made through respondent no.3 Nagpur District Security Protection Board. The petitioners seek to rely upon a letter of recommendation issued by the respondent no.2 in that regard. It is, however, submitted on behalf of respondent no.3 that

2301wp4410.19 2/2 engagement of Security Guards is after following the procedure prescribed under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme 2002. As per Clause 14 of that scheme, a person desirous of working as Security Guard has to get himself registered and after complying with all other requisites, his name can be considered for such appointment. An online examination is conducted followed by medical test.

3) It is seen that the petitioners are yet to get themselves registered under the scheme of 2002 for claiming a right to appointment.

4) In view of aforesaid, by observing that the petitioners are free to get themselves registered in accordance with Clause 14 of the Scheme of 2002, they can seek their appointment as Security Guard in accordance with the prescribed procedure. In the light of aforesaid, for the present, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of with these observations.

JUDGE JUDGE khj JESWANI