1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 948 OF 2007 Makarand Bhikaji Bagade, ] Age: 45 yrs., Adult, Occupation Service, ] Residing at 447, Ganpati Ali, Wai, Tal. Wai, ] Dist. Satara 412 803 ] ...Petitioner Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, ] Through Principal Secretary, ] Social Justice, Cultural Affairs, ] Sports and Special Assistance, ] Mantralaya, Mumbai ] 2. The District Social Welfare Officer, ] (Handicapped Department), Satara, At Satara ] 3. The Commissioner for Handicapped, ] 3 Church Road, Pune 1 ] 4. Wai Akshar Institute, ] At Wai, Dist. Satara ] ...Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner Mr. C.R. Sonawane, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondents No. 1 to 3. 2 CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. RESERVED ON: 16­6­2009 PRONOUNCED ON: 15­9­2009 JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.) :­ 1. Respondent No. 4 is a rehabilitation institution, which works in the field of rehabilitation, training and education of the mentally retarded children. Respondent No.4 is also conducting courses under open university for teachers. It is having six teachers, who are the recipients of the Ideal Teacher Award. The petitioner submits that in 1996, respondent No.4 was awarded the National Level Award, as it was the best institution imparting education to the handicapped. 2. The German Government donated a 10­seater Commander Jeep to respondent No. 4. The jeep was utilised for the purpose of transportation of the school children. The children were collected from various parts of the area and brought to school and then were taken back to their residences. In year 1985, 3 a Handicapped School Code was framed by the State. Requests were made, from time to time, for granting post of driver by the management. Respondent No.4 had sought guidance from respondents No. 1 to 3 from time to time. Respondent No.2 made a recommendation on 20th December, 1995 that the posts of driver and attendant be sanctioned under the said Code of 1985, and actual inspection was taken, and it was recommended that the posts should be sanctioned. However, there is no action on the part of the respondents. Respondent No.4, on 21st March, 1996, once again, requested for grant of the proposal. The said proposal remained pending. 3. The petitioner was appointed on 9th July, 1997 as a driver. The petitioner’s son, unfortunately, is also a mentally retarded child, and, therefore, the petitioner claims to be the most suitable candidate for the post of driver. The proposal submitted by respondent No.4, from time to time, remained pending. 4. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 6721 of 2002, for seeking regularisation of 4 his appointment. The writ petition was decided on 13th November, 2003 with the following order:­ “This petition can be conveniently disposed of by directing the respondents to decide the representation made by the petitioner for grant of approval and relaxation of condition of age taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner institute is running a school for mentally retarded children. The concerned authority to decide the representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.” 5. On 21st July, 2004, the Social Welfare Officer turned down the request made by respondent No.4 for sanctioning the post of driver on the ground that in the new staffing pattern, the post was not available. The petitioner submits that though in the Code of 1985, the post was available, however, in the 1997 Code, the post of driver was not shown in the staffing pattern. On 18th August, 2004, the new staffing pattern was introduced, and the post of driver was deleted. 6. The petitioner, again, filed another Writ Petition, No. 7879 of 2004, challenging the legality and validity of the said 5 rejection letter dated 21st July, 2004. The High Court decided the matter on 29th April, 2005. The High Court considered the matter in detail, where the Government had taken a view that there was no need to provide school bus because the State Transport and other local bodies were providing concessions to the handicapped students and their escorts. The High Court did not accept the decision and directed as under:­ “We therefore direct the State Government to forthwith restore the pre­1997 position and include the posts of driver and attendant in the staffing pattern for the handicapped children as far as the non­resident schools re concerned.” 7. The High Court also directed:­ “Before parting with this matter it may be mentioned that 3rd petitioner was employed prior to the revision of the Special School Code 1997 and, therefore, requirement of age as per the revised Code is not attracted. Respondents are directed to regularise the appointment of petitioner No.3 without raising objection of age bar and release salary grant in respect of the driver with effect from the date of filing of this petition.” These observations in the order passed by this Court have become the reason for the petitioner to come to this Court again. 6 Because of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7879 of 2004, it appears that the State Government approved the post of driver, but they prescribed that the driver would be appointed on contract basis for a salary of Rs.3,000/­ per month. This was a decision taken by the Government, and this Court would not be in a position to sit in appeal over the decision of the Government where they thought it appropriate to have the post of driver on a contract basis on a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/­. 8. The judgment of this Court passed earlier is sufficiently complied with. The anxiety of the Court, while deciding the earlier petition, was that there should be appropriate arrangements for handicapped children to be taken to school and back to their houses. As a bi­product, the present petitioner also got some relief. But it is within the domain of the Government to create a post, either on a regular pay­scale or on the basis of a contract, on a fixed salary. 7 9. We do not think that there is any reason for this Court to interfere in the matter. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. The Rule is discharged. BILAL NAZKI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.