← Library
Bombay High CourtCAW/1995/2021allowed

Kiran S/O Prahalad Meshram And Another v. The Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Thr. Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur

2022-01-24Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil B. Shukre,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Anil L. Pansare2 pages

caw1995.2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO.1995/2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6188/2016 Kiran Prahalad Meshram and another ..Vs..

Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur and another ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court'

s or Judge'

s Order Coram, appearances, Court'

s Orders or directions and Registrar'

s order Mrs. S.S. Wandile, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.M. Puranik, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. N.S. Rao, A.G.P. for respondent No.2.

CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATED :- 24.1.2022 .

Hearing is conducted through Video Conferencing and all the learned Advocates agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2.

Heard.

3.

For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and is disposed of accordingly. No costs. WRIT PETITION NO.6188/2016 4.

Heard.

5.

The petitioner No.1 was initially appointed as Mechanical Assistant and petitioner No.2 was initially appointed as Fitter and it appears that in the meeting held on 17.8.2004, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation by Resolution No.284 of 2004 relaxed the criteria for

caw1995.2021.odt appointment as Workshop Inspector and as a special case, resolved to promote the petitioners to the post of Workshop Inspector. It is further seen that this resolution, however, has not been given effect to by the Commissioner, as seen from the order dated 16.9.2016 (page 53). This order shows that the Commissioner found the resolution as inconsistent with rules and, therefore, he decided not to implement the resolution. However, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are actually working on the post of Workshop Inspector.

6.

We find neither the petitioners nor the Corporation, have filed any recruitment rules regarding appointment of Workshop Inspector. We direct the parties to file on record the recruitment rules. 7.

Stand over to four weeks for final hearing.

JUDGE JUDGE Signed By:NILESH VILASRAO TAMBASKAR Private Secretary Tambaskar.