FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1585/2007 (Dayanand Madanrao Dudhe vs. Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli and others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate, for petitioner Shri J.S.Mokadam, Adv. for R-1 Smt.K.H.Joshi, AGP, for R-2 Shri S.B.Bangde, Adv. for R-3 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND S.R.DONGAONKAR, JJ DATED : 13 th JUNE, 2008. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant documents and pleadings on record. We find merit in the stand taken on behalf of the respondents that the District Selection Committee besides discarding the birth certificate later on produced by the petitioner, has also considered other two grounds for answering the controversy against the petitioner. In that, it is noted that the petitioner was in the employment as contractual Gram Sewak with Panchayat Samiti, Korchi during the relevant period, but failed to obtain prior permission of the said employer before applying to the post of Extension Officer with respondent no.2. The fact that the petitioner was in such employment is not in dispute. According to the petitioner, the petitoiner was not a permanent employee. That would make no difference, if we fairly read the provisions of Rule (9) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, which would apply to the fact situation of the present case. Inasmuch as Rule (9) postulates that, no person who is an employee of any State Government or of the Government of India or of any local authority or of any State – aided body shall be eligible for being appointed through nomination to any post in any District services unless he submits his application for such posts after obtaining the consent of the concerned employer. The prior permission to be so obtained is quintessance for a valid application submitted by the candidate. In the present case, it is common ground that such permission was not obtained. To get over this position, counsel for the petitioner emphasised that the petitioner was employed as contractual Gram Sewak and not a permanent employee of Panchayat Samiti, Korchi. The expression used in Rule (9) is “no person who is an employee”. The word “employee” appearing in Rule (9) cannot be given limited meaning as is contended by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that expression “employee” has not been defined in the Rules. In our opinion, expression “employee” not only includes permanent, regular but also contractual employee, such as the petitioner. Thus understood, there is no reason to depart from the view expressed by the authority that in such cases, the application of the candidate will have to be turned down being invalid. The authority has also considered the fact that during the relevant period, the petitioner had proceeded on medical leave. The leave application preferred by the petitioner to Panchayat Samiti, Korchi has been produced by the respondent along with the affidavit. Correctness and genuineness of the said document is not in dispute. From the said document, it is seen that the petitioner applied for leave on the ground that he was suffering from “typhoid” and even this aspect has been rightly reckoned by respondent no. 2 to reject the claim of the petitioner. We see no reason to take a different view in the fact situation of the present case. Counsel for respondent no. 1 invited our attention to the order passed by the Division Bench of our High Court dated 4th August, 2006 in Writ Petition No.3684/2006, wherein this Court rejected the petition of similar candidate on the ground that his appliaton for employment was invalid in terms of Rule (9) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967. The observations in paragraph 4 of the said decision would apply to the case on hand. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Rvjalit