Beed zilla parishad employee gets HC relief

Aurangabad: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court, in a rare exercise of its inherent powers “in the interest of justice”, has quashed and set aside a November 30, 2018 order by Aurangabad’s then additional divisional commissioner that dismissed a Beed zilla parishad (ZP) employee’s appeal against his reversion as a peon (a group D post) in November 2015, after putting in two years of service as a Cluster Head (a group C post).

In a ruling on December 16, the bench of justice Mangesh Patil found no fault with the reversion order in the wake of a government resolution (GR) of August 23, 1996, but “considering peculiar facts and circumstances” of the case, directed the Beed ZP chief executive officer to accommodate petitioner Bhalchandra Kulkarni — a person with disability — as Cluster Head or on an equivalent post.

In 2004, the Beed ZP appointed Kulkarni, who then held a BA degree, as peon on compassionate grounds. Kulkarni later went on to complete his B.Ed and M.Ed and staked his claim for a group C post. The ZP appointed him as Cluster Head on October 25, 2013 following an HC directive to consider his representation.

However, in September 2015 the ZP initiated the process for reverting Kulkarni to the group D post, citing the August 23, 1996 government resolution (GR) which mandates absorption of a person to group C post only in the case where such a person had the requisite qualification i.e. a B.Ed degree at the time of his appointment to group D post on compassionate grounds. Kulkarni held a BA degree when he was appointed on compassionate grounds in 2004.

On November 24, 2015, the ZP cancelled his group C appointment as contrary to the GR and reverted him to the peon’s post. Kulkarni then moved an appeal in a quasi-judicial proceeding before the additional divisional commissioner of Aurangabad. The latter dismissed his appeal on November 30, 2018 and Kulkarni’s lawyer S D Tawshikar then filed a writ petition in the HC.

Justice Patil said there was no dispute that the petitioner, possessing a BA qualification at the time of his initial appointment on compassionate grounds to a group D post, was not eligible for a group C post. Also, there was no dispute about the petitioner having completed his B.Ed and M.Ed degrees and about the provisions of the GR of August 23, 1996. As such, the petitioner’s case was not covered by the GR.

The bench said, “True it is that appointment to a public office to a public office would depend upon the qualification possessed. The petitioner having been appointed on a compassionate ground which, as description suggests, is a concession and not a right, once having been appointed, he is justified in having a legitimate expectation that his case to the higher post is considered in due course.”


Stay updated with the latest news on Times of India. Don't miss daily games like Crossword, Sudoku, and Mini Crossword.