MOHAMMAD YOUSUF MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD PARBHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner came to be appointed alongwith other 18 individuals vide order dated 4th December, 1981 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani (respondent No. 2 herein) as Junior Engineer in the District Technical Services (Class III) (Engineering) Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 395-15-20-700-25-900 with a higher start of Rs. 425/- plus dearness allowance as admissible under the Rules, on a purely temporary basis for a period not exceeding one year or till the candidate selected by the Regional Selection Board, Aurangabad was appointed, whichever was earlier. By an order dated 22nd/29th November, 1982 the petitioners temporary service alongwith other six Junior Engineers, was brought to an end with effect from 2nd December, 1982 and on or about the same day a fresh appointment order was issued by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner and other six, appointing them on temporary basis for a period not exceeding one year or till the candidate selected by the Regional Selection Board at Aurangabad were appointed, whichever was earlier, in the same post and on a basic pay of Rs. 500/ -. Similar appointment orders were issued on 27th/28th December, 1983, 1st December, 1984 and 29th November, 1985. In all these appointment letters there was a condition that these temporary appointees shall furnish a written undertaking in the specimen form enclosed, before joining duty to the officer concerned and admittedly such an undertaking was furnished. By an order dated 19th November, 1986 the temporary appointment of the petitioner alongwith five other similarly appointed Junior Engineers was dispensed with effect from 21st November, 1986 and by another order dated 25th November, 1986 the other five Junior Engineers were reappointed on the same terms and conditions but the petitioners case was not considered. He, therefore, submitted representations to the respondent No. 2 for reappointment. It appears that inspite of the reminders submitted before the respondent No. 2 his case for reappointment on temporary basis was not considered and he, therefore, filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner at Aurangabad which came to be registered as Case No. 87/db/desk/i/crs/a/33 and this appeal was allowed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner at Aurangabad by order dated 30th May, 1988. The lower Appellate Authority directed the reinstatement of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 was directed to decide separately the issue of backwages etc. for the period from the date of dismissal till reinstatement in the light of Rule 70 (2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payments during Supersession Discipline and Removal) Rules, 1981. During the pendency of the appeal he approached this Court by the instant petition.

(2.) PURSUANT to this order passed by the lower Appellate Authority the petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 and sought an appointment by way of reinstatement. The respondent No. 2 issued an order dated 9th August, 1988 appointing the petitioner as Junior Engineer on a vacant post for a period not exceeding one year and with all other similar terms which are applicable to a temporary appointee including the undertaking to be furnished in writing. The petitioner contends that in response to this appointment order he submitted a joining report and he was not allowed to join on the ground that he did not furnish the written undertaking as was required in terms of the appointment order. The petitioner approached this Court in Civil Application No. 1664 of 1988 for amendment of the petition and the petition was allowed to be amended. The petitioner moved yet another Civil Application No. 6259 of 1997 for directions to continue the petitioner in service as Junior Engineer subject to the decision of the petition and pay his salary regularly or in the alternate to fix the petition for final hearing. By order dated 21st July, 1998 the alternate prayer was granted and the petition was fixed for final hearing in December, 1998 but it remained undecided.

(3.) THE respondent No. 2 has appeared and contested the petition by filing an affidavit in reply. It has been, inter alia, contended that the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner on 30th May, 1988 was not in keeping with the provisions of law and, therefore, a revision application has been submitted before the Divisional Commissioner which reportedly remains undecided till this date. It is further contended that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Clause 4 (1) (ii) of the Maharashtra Public Services (Subordinate) Selection Board (Repeal) Act, 1983 inasmuch as the petitioner was not a candidate recommended by any of the employment exchanges and, therefore, his service was not liable to be regularised. Admittedly, no further revision lies before the Divisional Commissioner against the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner.