IN' a'HB.;HIGH SSJSSSX.'Oe M83HV&. SB.lElESS.'SS'SSBSSSm Mi.se·- Peti'tion, No 'SSXSE'IiBSSB.t- •Badfa^aa ,%'aKwal,-;'ageft,25':-yeaESk.'^^s.-^ ^'" ^-?Sfact'K.L,&.''':^aP6^,.^Asst':s'fe,®y:,;^ -tta.at eiPal..eQEE>acat±.Qn,'E.agBaBdg-aQtf, i»Mdenfc of.'eorporafei.fiia ;s3a'ai"ters,' ' RaJB^dg.aQti,^ (B.P'.);.':' , : :1 "Y." .:^ ·vss.aw . : , ' : .. .: !; 1 ••: • •:1. assPOHDBNTSr-^It CChe. Adni.^ni. stratop, Hunicj.Pal Gorgor^i.Qn, :' Rajaandgaon. ^:. . , . ^'... : ' '..'. :': • :.;':'::'"?.^'^^^^ t.—^.-^E...«.{^ . .l^. 2. Stafce' o£.;Masa.Iiya ^atesh/.thFOagte'^t.he:'.'-^.1 .saecefea^, .l^al-Self-se^ifujaeR-t.i.^ttggal^ >" ? 3.- MsdBya-Se^e^ PubUc^ SerwfcGe' e6^^ XHa:ore^',<MI.P.:)...:'.,.,.1 - ;:; ••: •- :'' i^' :~ B^IE'IOS-VSSSSS. ffVSXSSSa 22:& &.227 •9B': •'EHB^SQSSSa'EO'PXOH' v©B.,.$SE)3:A." :%:, /tp/? rlD: 'ijTT-L^cV HIGH COIXRT OF JUDICATUJRB CaiHATTISCiARH: BILASPUR Slngle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sathrti K. AgnUiotrt, J. WMT FETmO»N0. 4400 OF 1989 Budhram. ^ran^l Vcrsus The AdministeatDr, Mimicipal Corpotation aad others. Preaeat: Shri B.P. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsd for the respondent No. 1. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer far the respondents No. 2/State. i ORALORDrai (21W December, 200S) Heaid 1. Pursiiant to fhe advertiseinent dated 31.12.1987 (Annexure P-1) fhe petitioncr inade aa appisca&m. for appointinent on fhc post of Assistant Eiigineer (CroiQ in Muuicq)al Corporation, Rajnandgaon. The required qualification for Assistaat Engineer (Civi^ waa B.E. (dvi^ with 50% marks and 5 years experience stated in the advertiseinent 2. Vide order dated 3.5.1988 (Annexure P-2), fhe petitioner was appoiated as Assistant Engineer (Cnri^ against clear vacancy, pn fhc pay scale of Rs 1000-30-1210-40-1450-50-1800-60-1920 for a period of six inonfhs with fhe condition that hfa semce could be tenniuated any time without show cause notice. Vide order dated 6.12.1988 (Aiinexure P-3) serwcc of thc petitioner was extcnded for ~^^r-=~- -^ W ^o IK further period of six inonfhs with a break of one day in anticipation of approval of fhe State PubUc Service Comnussion. Further by ordcr dated 27.12.1988 address to fhe Commjssioncr, Municipal Corporatioa, Rajxiandgaon, thc Public Semcc Coinmission declmed to grant appioval to the appointment of fhe petitioncr on ftie ground fhat the petitioner did not possess the prescribed expenence as lEquired for the post ofAssistant Enyneer (CwS^. 3. Thc State Govcnunent/rcspondent No. 2, by lettcr dated 30.8.1989 (Annexure P-7) infonned to the respondent No. 1 fhat in view of the refusal of appioval of his appointment by fhe State PubUc Service Comxnission, semce of fhe petitioner be terminated wifh inuaediate efiEect. 4. Being aggricved by fhe tettcr dated 27.12.1988 (Amiexure P-4) and thc letter dated 30.8.1989 (Annescure P-7), fhe petitfoner filed this petition tuuler Article 226 of fhe Constitution of India pragnng that the impugncd ordera dated 27.12.1988 aad letter dated 30.8.1989 be quashcd and the respondents be directed to acccpt the appointment of fhe petitioner ia fhe Munkapal Corporation, Rajnandgaon on fhe post ofAssistant Engineer (Ciwi^. 5. This court, after hcaring learaed counsel for fhe petitioner, while issuing uotice passed an interim. order oa 25.9.1989 to the cffect that semce of fhe petitioner shaU not be terminated until furfher orders. After heariag learaed couasel for bofh the partics, after notrce, fhe High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, where lfhe pctitmn was filed or^maUy axlnutted, fhe petitfon for hearing and the iiiterim order passed on 25.9.1989 was made absohite on 8.7;91. ^ 6. Pursuaat to fhe oidcrs dated 2S.9.1989 and 8.7.91 passcd by the High Court, the pctitioner continued as Assistant Eiigineer (Civi^ wifh thc respondent No. 1/Corporation. Presenfly, he haa bcen sent on deputation to the Municipal Corporation, Raipiu-. 7. Leamed counsel appearu^ fbr the petitioner contentcd that thc petitioncr was weU quaUfied haviag obtained B.E. degrec (Cwi^ at the tuae of appoiutmcnt by the respondcnt No. 1/Corporatfon. Though, fhe petitioner did iiot ha»ecxperience at fhe tuue of mitial appointment, but with fhe p^sage of tune and pursuant to ibc order passcd by fhis coiut, the petitioner Iias obtained sufGcieat experience on account of tihis, fhe petitioner should not be fhiown out after haviag served fhe Corporatfon for movs fhan 16 years. Lcaraed counsel relies on decision of fhe Supreiue Court in Mia* SIiainda Hawa Vs. State of Itttar Pradedi aad othera (AIR 1990 Supremc Court 1381). 8. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, fcamed counsel appcaring for fhe respondent No. 1/Corporation and Shri Paakaj Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for Chc respondcnt No. 2 submit that fhe issue involvcd in fhe present petition is not fhe escperiencc which had been obtaincd by ttie petitioner today. Whcn fhe petitioner was appointed, he did not have the reqiusite cxpcrieacc aud as such fhe Statc PubBc Seruice ConunMsion as wctt as State Goveminent had righfty decUned to grant appioval fbr appointaient of the petitioaer on the post of Assistant Ei^mcer (CiviQ. Be fhat as it inay, the petitioner had academic quali&cation on that day, when the Corporadon appointed the pctitioncr on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civi^. The petifener did not possess fhe experience, ^' ^ •^' Bablu whjch he has obtaiDed durnig pendency of fhis petitioa. The petitioner was aDowed to continue by orders passed by tfais courfc The Supreine Court in Miss Shalnda Haaan's case (Supra), wherein idcntical facts were involved, has held as under:- "It is admitted by fhe parties fhat as a resiilt of thc Court orders fhe appeUaat Ms. Shainda Hasan is continumg to work as Pniicipal in the Karamat Husain MusUm Girls CoUege, Lucknow slnce 1974. Having served fhe institution for over 16 years it would be uajust to naake her leave fhe post Undcr fhc circuinstaaces let fhe Uxiiveisily reconsider fhe whote iiu.tter sympatheticalfy". 9. It is adinltted position that now by rcsolution dated 6.10.1988, the Corporation has relaxed conditfon ofhaving 5 ycars cxperience for appointment on fhe post ofAssistant Eiigineer (Civi^. 10. For the rc^sons stated abovc, ttie petftion is aUowed with a dircctfon fhat the respondents No. 1 and 2 shaU. consider fhe case of the petitioner fbr graat of approval to the appointment inade on 3.5.1988 on the post of Assistaat Eiigineer (Civi^. No order as to costs. Sd4 sa^A K^Ag^ Judge 11-1 ^