SHAILA ARUN LIMYE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petition has been filed challenging the circular issued by Respondent No.1 on 25.11.2004 which according to the Petitioner is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner has also sought appointment to the post of Librarian in the Respondent No.4 college run by Respondent No.5 society. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Petitioner has retired and therefore, has limited the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. She now seeks that the respondents be directed to pay monetary benefits to her on the basis that she would have been entitled to be appointed as a Librarian from 1.8.1995 and would have retired as such.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are not in dispute. The Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk with Respondent No.4 in 1974. After a period of two years of service, she was confirmed in the post of Junior Clerk with Respondent No.4. In 1982, the Petitioner graduated in Library Science and was promoted as an Assistant Librarian in the college by a letter dated 16.4.1983. The Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Librarian w.e.f. 1.8.1982. She later passed her Masters degree in Library Science with a higher second class.

(3.) According to the Petitioner, there was only one post of Assistant Librarian and one post for a Librarian in the college. She was often required to officiate in the post of Librarian as and when the Librarian proceeded on leave. It appears that after the Librarian retired on 13.7.1995, the College advertised the post and sought candidates from the reserved category. The Petitioner protested against the issuance of the advertisement and requested the College to appoint her as the Librarian. The Petitioner contended that the Librarian's post was an isolated post and therefore, there was no question of there being any reservation for that post. As her request to the College went unheeded, the Petitioner preferred the present writ petition.