SEEMA ARUN BAPAT Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BULDHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiff.

(2.) A few facts may be narrated thus -Plaintiff's father Ramdas was serving with the Municipal Council, buldhana, who is the defendant in this suit. He died while in service in the year 1975. The plaintiff applied for her appointment on a compassionate ground. The municipal Council i. e. the defendant appointed the plaintiff in place of her father. She was, however, appointed as a Class IV servant. She, in fact, possessed the qualification for being appointed as a Clerk but she was appointed on daily wages as Class IV. She was later confirmed w. e. f. 1-2-1982 on the class IV post. Although she was appointed as Class IV servant, she was discharging duty of class III servant. It is the contention of the plaintiff that her claim for being appointed as Class IV was always ignored by the defendant. The defendant made certain appointments on 31-8-1982 but did not consider the plaintiff. Ultimately, it is contended by the plaintiff that on 26-8-1985 a Resolution was passed by the defendant deciding to promote her in Class III cadre. However, she was never given appointment in the Class III cadre by the defendant. It is contended that thereafter certain persons were appointed in Class III cadre but her claim was once again ignored. She, therefore, prayed for decree that a direction be given to the defendant to appoint her as a clerk w. e. f. 31-7-1982 and to give her consequential reliefs or it is contended that she be promoted w. e. f. 26-8-1985 in the Class-Ill cadre.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit. It is the contention of the defendant that the suit is untenable. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try such suit. No notice under section 304 was given to the defendant. It is contended by the defendant that in the year 1982 when plaintiff was appointed, the only post available for her appointment was in Class IV cadre and she was accordingly given appointment. It is also contended that these promotions are given according to seniority. Her name appears at Sr. No. 42 and no person, who is below her in the seniority list has been promoted as yet. It is, therefore, contended that the suit is misconceived. Further, it is contended that there is no vested right in the plaintiff to seek promotion.