STATE OF MAH Vs. ANIL RAMESH KAMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceeding is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (for short, "M.A.T.") delivered in Original Application No.694/2003. By this decision the Tribunal gave direction on 10-2-2005 to the present petitioners, Government and the Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad to give to the present respondent and one more applicant in other proceeding appointments on Class IV posts on the establishment of the Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad in the vacancies which may occur in future as the candidates from open category. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent is also heard.

(2.) The respondent had filed the proceeding before the M.A.T. and he had contended that he had filed application in the office of the Dean, Government Medical College & Hospital on 26-9-2003 for getting appointment to Class IV post. He had contended that he had registered his name in the Employment Exchange also as he was unemployed. It is his contention that on 9-10-2003 he was interviewed and he was selected for Class IV post which was to be filled from handicapped category. It was contended that appointment order dated 16-10-2003 was issued in his favour. When he was asked to resume the duty he was not allowed to join the duty. It is contended that due to pressure and influence of the union leader who had objected to this appointment order he was not allowed to resume the duty. He had claimed the relief to declare that he was entitled to get such appointment and relief of aforesaid nature is given after hearing both the sides by the Tribunal. It appears that the relief is given mainly due to a circumstance like relief granted to another similar person in Writ Petition No.5483/2003 by this Court.

(3.) Defence was taken by the present petitioners that there was no process of selection, recruitment of candidates for such posts and even interview was not taken of present respondent for the recruitment. It was contended that a Clerk of the office obtained signature of the Dean on the appointment order virtually by fraud and so no right as such is vested in the present respondent to get appointment to the post of Class IV cadre. It was contended that when such mischief was realized, the respondent was not allowed to resume the duty.