BHUJANG Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions have a common grievance and hence they are being disposed of by common judgment. Heard Shri . Praveen Wagh , learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri . U.K.Patil , learned A.G.P. for Respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri . Irale Patil , learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 5 in writ petition nos. 47 of 1988 and 455 of 1988; and Shri . V. G. Sakolkar , learned counsel for the petitioner Shri . U. K. Patil , learned A.G.P. for the State and Shri . Irale Patil , learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad in writ petition no. 1377 of 1990, 1278 of 1990, 1368 of 1990 and 1286 of 1990.

(2.) PETITION nos. 47 of 1988 and 455 of 1988 arise out of the non implementation of the Government Resolutions dated 7.1.1974 and 10.7.1974 by the respondents and order dated 15.5.1985, passed by the respondent no.2 rejecting application of the petitioners to provide alternative employment and to bring the petitioners on converted regular establishment as Mistry Grade I. In writ petition no. 47 of 1988, the petitioner is employed and designated as Muster Assistant since 3.11.1978 under the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme Act, 1977 (Act XXth of 1978). Respondent no. 1 is the State of Maharashtra . Respondent no.2 is the Secretary empowered to bring the employees on converted regular work charged establishment. Respondent no.3 is the authority to implement the Government Resolutions dated 7.1.1974, 10.7.1974 and 21.3.1975. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are the appointing authorities.

(3.) PETITIONER 's case in fact is that respondent no.5 interviewed him, however, instead of appointing him on the post of Mistry Grade II, the petitioner was appointed as Muster Assistant under E.G.S. Copy of the interview call is annexed at Exh . F and the order regarding his appointment as Muster Assistant dated 28.10.1978 is appended to the petition.