Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh Krishna Kale, was appointed as Police Patil for village Waghbodi, Bhandara, vide order dated 5.2.2013 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhandara. Respondent No. 4, Anil Pandurang Badole, challenged this appointment before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Nagpur Bench) in Original Application No. 188 of 2013. The Tribunal allowed the application and set aside the appointment, primarily on the ground that the petitioner did not hold land in his own name, which the Tribunal considered mandatory under the Government Resolution dated 7.9.1999. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's reasoning was based on an erroneous interpretation of the Government Resolution. The Court relied on the Division Bench judgment in Arun Tukaram Patil v. State of Maharashtra & ors, 1999 (3) Mh. L. J. 594, which held that holding of land in one's own name is not a requirement of eligibility for appointment as Police Patil under the Maharashtra Village Police Patils (Recruitment, Pay, Allowances and Other Conditions of Service) Order, 1968, regulation 3(c), clause 5(2). The Court observed that the Government Resolution dated 7.9.1999 is not mandatory and that the Tribunal had misapplied it. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and restored the petitioner's appointment as Police Patil.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Police Patil Appointment - Eligibility Condition - Government Resolution dated 7.9.1999 - The issue was whether holding of land in one's own name is mandatory for appointment as Police Patil. The High Court held that the Government Resolution is not mandatory and that the Division Bench judgment in Arun Tukaram Patil v. State of Maharashtra & ors, 1999 (3) Mh. L. J. 594, clarifies that holding of land in one's own name is not a requirement of eligibility under the Maharashtra Village Police Patils (Recruitment, Pay, Allowances and Other Conditions of Service) Order, 1968, regulation 3(c), clause 5(2). The Tribunal's order setting aside the appointment was quashed. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether holding of land in one's own name is a mandatory requirement for appointment as Police Patil under the Government Resolution dated 7.9.1999 and the Maharashtra Village Police Patils (Recruitment, Pay, Allowances and Other Conditions of Service) Order, 1968.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 20th February 2014, and restored the appointment of the petitioner as Police Patil.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Government Resolution
- Eligibility for Police Patil
- Holding of Land Not Mandatory
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (12) 114
Writ Petition No. 1228 of 2014
A. B. Chaudhari, P. R. Bora
Mr S. Borkar for petitioner, Ms M. N. Hiwase, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents 1 to 3
State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, District Collector, Bhandara, Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhandara, Anil Pandurang Badole
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal setting aside the appointment of the petitioner as Police Patil.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal's order dated 20th February 2014 and restoration of his appointment as Police Patil.
Filing Reason
The Tribunal set aside the petitioner's appointment on the ground that he did not hold land in his own name, which was considered mandatory under the Government Resolution dated 7.9.1999.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowed Original Application No. 188 of 2013 filed by respondent no. 4, setting aside the petitioner's appointment.
Issues
Whether holding of land in one's own name is a mandatory requirement for appointment as Police Patil under the Government Resolution dated 7.9.1999 and the Maharashtra Village Police Patils (Recruitment, Pay, Allowances and Other Conditions of Service) Order, 1968.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that the Tribunal erroneously interpreted the Government Resolution dated 7.9.1999 and relied on the Division Bench judgment in Arun Tukaram Patil v. State of Maharashtra & ors, which held that holding of land in one's own name is not a requirement of eligibility.
Respondents 1 to 3 supported the petitioner's appointment before the Tribunal and did not file a reply in the writ petition.
Respondent no. 4, though served, did not appear.
Ratio Decidendi
The Government Resolution dated 7.9.1999 is not mandatory; holding of land in one's own name is not a requirement of eligibility for appointment as Police Patil under the Maharashtra Village Police Patils (Recruitment, Pay, Allowances and Other Conditions of Service) Order, 1968, regulation 3(c), clause 5(2).
Judgment Excerpts
It is quite clear that non-holding of land by the petitioner in his own name is the main reason for setting aside his appointment as Police Patil by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has held that holding of land in one's own name as mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 7.9.1999 is mandatory.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed as Police Patil on 5.2.2013. Respondent no. 4 challenged the appointment before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 188 of 2013. The Tribunal allowed the application on 20.2.2014, setting aside the appointment. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 1228 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court, which was allowed on 23.12.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Village Police Patils (Recruitment, Pay, Allowances and Other Conditions of Service) Order, 1968: Regulation 3(c), Clause 5(2)
