DINESH WAMANRAO DHAWALE Vs. COLLECTOR, AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 23 -12 -1996 passed by the Collector, Amravati i.e. respondent no. 1 herein and the orders passed consequent thereto i.e. the order dated 27 -12 -1996 passed by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Chandur Bazar i.e. respondent no. 2 herein and the order dated 22 -04 -1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division i.e. respondent no. 3 herein are questioned in the present Writ Petition.

(2.) THE facts which are relevant for deciding the present petition can be stated thus : The Municipal Council, Chandur Bazar i.e. respondent no. 2 published an advertisement thereby inviting the applications for filling in the posts of Coolie, Chowkidar and Chaprasi (Peon). Two such advertisements were published. One was for the post to be filled in the Municipal Council whereas other was for the post to be filled in the School run by the Municipal Council. The petitioners applied for the respective posts. They were interviewed by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose on 24 -02 -1996. In the meeting of the Standing Committee of respondent no. 2 held on 22 -03 -1996 a resolution was passed for appointment of the petitioners to their respective posts. On 04 -05 -1996 the appointment orders were issued under the signature of respondent no. 2, in pursuance of which the petitioners resumed to their respective posts. The petitioner no. 1 was appointed as Coolie, petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were appointed as peons (Chaprasis). The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were given appointment in the Municipal Council whereas the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 were appointed in the school run by the Municipal Council. On 22 -07 -1996, the then Chief Officer of Municipal Council, Chandur Bazar forwarded a letter to respondent no. 1 making a grievance in regard to the appointments of the petitioners and requested the respondent no. 1 to take necessary action and pass necessary order by invoking Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965 [for short, "the said Act"] whereupon the respondent no. 1 passed an order on 23 -12 -1996 thereby suspending the implementation of the resolution nos. 2 and 3 passed in the meeting of the Standing Committee of respondent no. 2 held on 22 -03 -1996. Pursuant to the order so passed by the respondent no. 1, respondent no. 2 issued letters dated 27 -12 -1996 to the petitioners relieving them from their respective posts with effect from the said date. Being aggrieved by the said action of respondent no. 2 the petitioners submitted the revision applications before the respondent no. 3 with a prayer to set aside the order passed by respondent no. 1 on 23 -12 -1996 on the strength of which they were relieved from their jobs by respondent no. 2. The revision petition so filed by the petitioners was rejected by respondent no. 3 vide order passed by him on 22 -04 -1997. Aggrieved by the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.

(3.) SHRI Mohan Sudame, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 3 have supported the impugned orders. They have submitted that respondent no. 1 has rightly invoked the powers under Section 308 of the said Act since the resolution making appointments of the petitioners was passed while the Code of Conduct was in force. The learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that since there were clear directions for notifying the vacancies to the respective Employment Exchange office and to fill in the posts by inviting the list of the candidates enrolled with the respective Employment Exchange the Municipal Council should not have deviated from the said directions. According to them, the appointments made in violation of the said directions were illegal and as such the action taken by respondent no. 1 under Section 308 of the said Act cannot be faulted with.