1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2423 OF 2003 Shri Arun Vasantrao Vaidya, Age 37 years, Occu. Service, Residing at Shirpur, Tqluka Shirpur, District. Dhule. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1] Shirur-Warwade Nagar Parishand, Shirpur Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule (Notice to be served on the Chief Officer, Shirpur-Warwade Nagar Parishad, Shirpur, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule. 2] Shri Suresh Bhagwan Bagul, Age 35 years, Occu. Service, Resident of Shirpur, District Dhule. ..RESPONDENTS ... Shri. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A.B. Girase, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Shri P.D. Bachate, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. CORAM :- B.R.GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE : 9thth JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: The petitioner has filed present petition with following prayer. 2 “ That by Writ of Certiorari or by any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, the order of the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik dated 29th April, 1989, in Revision Application No. 192/1985 may be set aside and the order dated 29th September 1984, passed by the Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, in Review Application No. 151 of 1984 may be restored.” The petitioner is an employee of respondent No. 1, Municipal Council. At the relevant time the petitioner was working as Head-Clerk in the establishment of respondent No. 1. It appears that the respondent No. 1 had submitted a proposal to the Regional Director of Municipal Administration for sanctioning the post of Administrative Officer. It further appears that, the Regional Director of Municipal Administration vide order dated 12-02-1984 /27-03-1984 granted permission to convert the post of Head-Clerk into the post of Administrative Officer. However, on the said converted post respondent No. 2 herein came to be appointed as an Administrative Officer. Since 3 as a consequence thereof the petitioner came to be reverted, he preferred Review Application No. 151/1984. The Divisional Commissioner vide its order dated 29/09/1984 allowed the revision by setting aside the order which created the post of Administrative Officer and directed that the petitioner should be restored to the post of Head Clerk. 2. Subsequently, again administrator of the Municipal Council submitted proposal before the Regional Director of Municipal Administration regarding the creation of post of Administrative Officer. Vide order dated 18/04/1985 the Regional Director of Municipal Administration sanctioned the said post. Therefore, the petitioner has again filed review. The same review came to be dismissed vide order dated 29/04/1989. 3. Shri S.P. Brahme, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that when the post of Administrative Officer came to be abolished vide order dated 29/09/1984, there was no justification for respondent No. 1 to submit 4 proposal on 23/10/1984 and further no justification for the Divisional Commissioner to sanction the same on 18/04/1985. He further submits that the impugned order is full of perversity. He submits that in the order the Divisional Commissioner observed that while sanctioning the post the Divisional Commissioner has taken into consideration all earlier aspects. However, it is submitted that the order dated 18/04/1985 does not even reflect the earlier order claiming the post of Administrator. He therefore submits that, the petition needs to be allowed and the petitioner needs to be given deemed date of Administrative Officer right from the inception of the post. 4. Shri Girase, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Municipal Council and Shri Bachate, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently submits that the petitioner does not have basic qualification for the post of Administrative officer. It is therefore submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5 5. The prayers in the petition are two fold. Firstly for quashing and setting aside the order dated 29/04/1989 and secondly for restoring the order dated 29/09/1984. It is not in dispute that after 29/09/1984 the petitioner was restored to the post of Head-Clerk and continued on the said post till his retirement. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that grievance of the petitioner does not survive in so far as the second prayer is concerned. 6. Only question remain as to whether the petitioner deserves to be considered in so far as first part of the relief is concerned. Vide order dated 19/04/1989 the Divisional Commissioner has found that the sanction by the Commissioner for granting approval to the post of Administrative Officer, was accorded after onsidering all the relevant aspect. In any way it can be seen that the petitioner cannot be heard to have any grievance in so far as sanctioning the post of Administrative Officer. The Rule which prescribes the qualification for the post of Administrative Officer requires that the candidate should be a 6 graduate of recognised University with L.S. & L.S.B.O. Diploma. Admittedly the petitioner is qualified up to S.S.C. and he does not possess degree as aforesaid. The petitioner therefore cannot claim the said post. In so far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of impugned order is concerned, we are unable to accept the said submission. In the present case whether to grant the post of Administrative Officer or not is purely administrative function of the Divisional Commissioner which has to be exercised by taking into consideration administrative exigences of the concerned Municipal Council. Merely because the petitioner holds the post of Head-Clerk, he cannot be said to be entitled for the post of Administrative Officer, though not holding basic qualification for the same. This petition is only filed before us because the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Administrative Officer, though the petitioner does not hold the qualification, and also though the respondent No. 2 is duly qualified. 7 7. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the petition, petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] [B.R.GAVAI, J ] SDM* 2423.03WP