1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1333 OF 1994. PETITIONER: Municipal Council, Achalpur, through its Chief Officer. -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS: 1. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. 2. Collector, Amravati, District Amravati. 3. Ku. Lugna Nahit, d/o Amanullakhan, aged about 23 years, resident of Kuashitpura, Achalpur, District Amravati. ------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's Orders. Shri P. C. Madkholkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri SS Doifode, AGP for R-1 to 3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : 08/09/2009. Heard Shri P. C. Madkholkar, 2 Advocate for the Petitioner and Shri S. S. Doifode, learned AGP for the Respondents no.1 & 2. Nobody appears for Respondent no.3 though she is served. The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order of the Collector, Amravati dated 23-12-1993 passed in the proceedings under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 as in force then, suspending the Resolution no.1 dated 22-8-1993 passed by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council. The said order is confirmed by the Additional Commissioner on 30-03-1994. This Court has admitted the Writ Petition on 22-4-1996, but no interim orders are passed. Advocate Mr. Madkholkar contends that the Resolution of the 3 Municipal Council only directed that the candidates selected after following proper selection procedure should be appointed for a period a of six months or then till receipt of duly selected candidates from Service Selection Board. According to him, the resolution is not against the public interest at all and could not have been interfered under Section 308. He further points out that the Collector, Amravati has while suspending the said resolution directed that the Respondent no.3 should be appointed in service. According to him, this direction is excessive and unsustainable. He contends that even if the resolution of the Standing Committee is presumed to be against the public interest, in the proceeding under Section 308, the 4 directions to appointment could not have been issued. He states that the said error has been committed even by the Additional Commissioner while examining the grievance of the Petitioner. Learned AGP for the Respondents no.1 & 2 has pointed out that the Respondent no.3 approached the Collector with a grievance that she was a physically handicapped person and though she had some experience of working with the Municipal Council, her claim has not been considered. She also pointed pout that as per the Government resolution dated 3-12-88, there ought to have been 3% reservation for physically handicapped persons, and no such reservation was provided by the Municipal Council. According to the 5 learned AGP, it is in these circumstances, the direction to appoint has been issued. He further points out that the Collector has also found that while conducting the Selection process, there were some irregularities and therefore, the Collector has also directed that the Social Welfare Officer and Tribal Welfare Officer must be called at the time of oral interview. During hearing, Mr. Madkholkar has fairly stated that he has no instructions whether Respondent no.3 was thereafter, provided work or not and whether she is in the employment today or not. He further states that the alleged irregularities pointed out by the Collector are of no consequence because the selection conducted was not for filling in the vacancies 6 permanently. With the assistance of the respective Counsel, we have perused the orders as also the resolution of the Municipal Council. It is apparent that the resolution of the Municipal Council per se cannot be said to be against the public interest. It shows that the names of the candidates were called for interview from the Employment Exchange and those candidates were then interviewed. As the permanent posts could have been given only to the candidates selected by Service Selection Board, till such candidates sent by the Service Selection Board become available or for a period of six months, the Municipal Council wanted to make the appointments from these interviewed candidates. However, fact remains 7 that the Respondent no.3 who had earlier worked, and was physically handicapped was not considered when these interviews were conducted. It is also apparent that the reservation to the extent of 3% of vacancies was not prescribed. That vacancies were not sought to be filled in permanently cannot be the answer to this when a candidate like Respondent no.3 was available and she had some experience of teaching, her claim ought to have been considered. Thus, in the present facts, without going into the merits of the arguments advanced by Advocate Mr. Madkholkar to assail the orders passed by the Collector, and the Additional Commissioner, we find that the continuation of Respondent no.3 in the employment by the Municipal Council 8 cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust. The fact that she was physically handicapped and that there was no reservation prescribed at the relevant time is not in dispute before us. Interviews conducted by Petitioner were to fill in vacancies only temporarily. Hence, if Respondent no.3 has been appointed in pursuance of the directions given by the Collector in his order and is still continuing in service, it would be unjust to order her discontinuation after a period of 15 years in the present matter. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/