Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Vijay Kishanrao Kurundkar and Prashant Purushottam Sant, filed a writ petition challenging the regularization of services of respondent Nos.5 and 6, Madhukar Mohanraoji Parate and Digambar Ganpatrao Barapatre, in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Maharashtra. They also challenged the seniority given to them in the cadre of Assistant Engineer and sought a declaration regarding the Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995, which provided protection to employees who had failed to obtain validity certificates for their caste claims. The petitioners argued that the regularization and seniority were illegal and that the Government Resolution was arbitrary. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the individual respondents, contended that the regularization was done in accordance with the rules and the Government Resolution was valid. The court, after hearing the arguments, held that the Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995 was not arbitrary and the regularization of services of respondent Nos.5 and 6 was valid. The court also upheld the seniority granted to them. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularization of Services - Caste Claim Validity - Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995 - The petition challenged regularization of services of respondent Nos.5 and 6 who failed to get validity certificates for their caste claims. The court held that the Government Resolution providing protection to such employees is not arbitrary and the regularization was valid. (Paras 1-10)
B) Service Law - Seniority - Caste Claim Validity - The petitioners sought to challenge the seniority given to respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the cadre of Assistant Engineer. The court held that the seniority granted was in accordance with the rules and the protection under the Government Resolution. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the regularization of services and grant of seniority to respondent Nos.5 and 6, who failed to obtain validity certificates for their caste claims, is valid and whether the Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995 providing protection to such employees is arbitrary and liable to be struck down.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The regularization of services of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the seniority granted to them are upheld. The Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995 is held valid.
Law Points
- Regularization of services
- Caste claim validity
- Protection of employees
- Government Resolution
- Seniority
- Writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (04) 12
Writ Petition No. 6589 of 2011 with Civil Application No.3732 of 2017 and Contempt Petition No.417 of 2017
T.V. Nalawade, Sunil K. Kotwal
Ajay S. Deshpande for petitioners, R.V. Dasalkar for respondent Nos.1 to 4, R.N. Dhorde holding for N.S. Kadam for respondent Nos.5 and 6
Vijay Kishanrao Kurundkar and Prashant Purushottam Sant
The State of Maharashtra, The Secretary, Water Resources Department, The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, The Secretary, General Administration Department, The Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Madhukar Mohanraoji Parate, Digambar Ganpatrao Barapatre
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging regularization of services and seniority of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in Irrigation Department.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to challenge the regularization of services of respondent Nos.5 and 6, challenge the seniority given to them, and seek declaration regarding Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that respondent Nos.5 and 6 failed to obtain validity certificates for their caste claims but were still regularized and given seniority, which was illegal.
Issues
Whether the regularization of services of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is valid.
Whether the seniority granted to respondent Nos.5 and 6 is valid.
Whether the Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995 is arbitrary and liable to be struck down.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that regularization and seniority were illegal and Government Resolution was arbitrary.
Respondents contended that regularization was in accordance with rules and Government Resolution was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995 providing protection to employees who failed to obtain validity certificates for caste claims is not arbitrary and the regularization of services and seniority granted in accordance with such resolution are valid.
Judgment Excerpts
The petition is filed for challenging the regularization of services of respondent No.5 and 6 in Irrigation Department of the Government and also to challenge the seniority given to them in the cadre of Assistant Engineer.
Further declaration is claimed in respect of Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995 issued by the Government by which protection was given by the Government to the employees like respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who had failed to get Validity Certificate in respect of their claim.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed in 2011. Civil Application No.3732 of 2017 and Contempt Petition No.417 of 2017 were filed subsequently. The judgment was delivered on 16 April 2018.
