SUNIL SHAMRAO JADHAV Vs. KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the first petition there were 10 petitioners and we are now informed that petitioner no. 5 - Pratap Ambaji Bodekar is no more in service of the Corporation and petitioner no. 8 - Ramchandra shivajirao Chavan died during the pendency of this petition and, therefore, the petition survives for the remaining eight petitioners. Petition No. 3685 of 1994 is filed by three persons. All these eleven petitioners claim that they had undergone the selection process for the post of Assistant traffic Inspector (hereinafter referred as "a. T. I. " for short) pursuant to the advertisement published in the local newspaper on 12. 10. 1992 by the commissioner or the Transport Manager, Kolhapur municipal Corporation Transport, Kolhapur, an undertaking of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and they were issued appointment orders on or about 24. 7. 1993. However, when they went to report for duty they were not allowed to join on or about 26. 7. 1993. They submitted a representation on or about 19. 5. 1994 as well as 26. 2. 1994 to the commissioner but they were not successful in joining the post of concerned Traffic Inspector. Hence they approached this Court on or about 4th july, 1994 i. e. after one year of the date of appointment orders being issued. The Division bench of this Court while granting Rule by its order dated 21. 7. 1994 was pleased to order the interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) but without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent is a recognised union, namely, Municipal Transport worker's Union. Consequently, the petitioners were allowed to join in the post of A. T. I. under the kolhapur Municipal Transport with all consequential service benefits.

(2.) RESPONDENT no. 4 - union (hereinafter referred as "recognised union" for short) has also filed Writ Petition No. 747 of 1995 and challenged the appointments of the very same petitioners in writ petition nos. 2611/94, 3685/94 and 4082/94. We shall deal with writ petition No. 4082/94 separately and a little later.

(3.) KOLHAPUR Municipal Corporation came to be established in the year 1971-72 by the conversion of Kolhapur Municipal Council. However, the municipal Council had a separate transport establishment by the name Kolhapur Municipal transport and the said establishment continued to be run by the Corporation as well, as its undertaking. The service conditions of the employees of Corporation as well as the transport undertaking are governed by the regulations framed under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation act, 1949 ("the Act" for short ). An advertisement was published by the Kolhapur Municipal Transport in the local newspaper on 12. 10. 1992 inviting applications for 16 posts of A. T. I. and 6 of them were reserved for the backward classes whereas the remaining 10 were meant to be filled in by the open category candidates. The unrevised pay scale of the posts was Rs. 335-15-500-20-580-30-620. The experience and qualification for eligibility of the said posts were described as under in the same advertisement: (a) the age limit - 28 years and relaxation by 5 years for the candidates from reserved category; (b) Bachelor's degree of a recognised university; and (c) 5 years work experience of a transport undertaking. 3. 1. It appears that the Corporation received in all about 175 applications in response to the said advertisement. The interviews and other formalities were completed and on 19. 7. 1993 an approval was granted by the resolution of the standing committee of the Corporation for the appointment of 15 candidates to the post of A. T. I. and 5 of them were from the reserved category whereas remaining 10 were from the open category. It was further resolved to appoint the said 15 candidates on probation for a period of one year. Consequently, the appointment letters were issued for the post of A. T. I. in the unrevised pay scale of Rs. 365-620 which was converted to revised pay scale of Rs. 1280-2300. It appears that when the petitioners went to report for duty on 26. 7. 1993 they were not allowed to join the duties and purportedly on account of the strike. However, the transport committee of the Kolhapur Municipal transport passed the resolution and stayed the earlier decision to appoint the petitioners on account of the agitations resorted to by the members of the recognised union. Consequent to the interlocutory order of this Court the petitioners are in service with so called all the benefits. It has been further pointed out that four more posts of A. T. I. have been filled in on the basis of contractual appointments of one year as trainees and to fill the reserved category backlog. These appointments are as trainees have been made on consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 3,900/ -. In the first two petitions the main relief prayed for is to issue orders/directions to the respondents that the petitioners be allowed to work in the post of a. T. I. pursuant to the appointment orders issued in their favour on 24. 7. 1993 w. e. f. 26. 7. 1993 and all other consequential benefits including the arrears of salary, seniority promotion etc.