Bombay High Court
DAYANAND ANIL VANVE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioners lack locus standi and the earlier court decision upholding the absorption remains valid.
Summary
The petitioners, educated unemployed persons, challenged a Government Resolution dated 05.05.2022 that regularised and absorbed two municipal employees (Respondents 5 and 6) into the Parbhani Municipal Corporation. They sought a writ of certiorari to quash the resolution, alleging illegal appointment and claiming they were equally qualified. The Court noted that the same absorption had previously been challenged in Syed Moin Syed Hasan v. State of Maharashtra (W.P. No.12594 of 2021) and that the earlier judgment dismissed the challenge on the ground of lack of locus standi. The Court reiterated that the employees had been appointed through a proper advertisement, interview process, and regularisation under existing vacant posts, in accordance with Section 53 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. Consequently, the petition was held to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Government Resolution regularising and absorbing the two municipal employees was illegal.
- Whether the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the absorption of the respondents.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act — s. 53(1) proviso, 53(3)
Subjects
- writ of certiorari
- locus standi
- regularisation
- municipal corporation
- appointment
- Section 53
- illegal appointment
- absorption
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43072-DB
1 80.WP.493.23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 493 OF 2023
DAYANAND ANIL VANVE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. G.R. Syed
AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. V.M. Kagne
Advocate for respondent No. 4 : Ms. Rani Bharuka – Bora h/f.
Mr. S.S. Bora
Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. Vishant P. Kadam
Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. Parag Vijay Barde
…
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 16.09.2026
PER COURT:
1. By this petition, the petitioner has put forth the following
substantial prayer :
B. By issuing Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ,
Order or Directions in like nature this Hon'ble Court may
kindly quash and set aside impugned Government
Resolution dated 05.05.2022 in respect of illegal
appointment / Absorption of the Respondents No. 5 & 6
and consequential orders issued by the Respondents No. 4
in favor of the Respondents No. 5 and 6.
2. By Government Resolution dated 05.05.2022, respondent Nos.5
and 6 were absorbed in the service of respondent No.4 – Municipal
2 80.WP.493.23.odt
Corporation, Parbhani. The petitioners who are stranger challenges the
Government Resolution and the absorption of the respondents.
3. The petitioners claim to be educated unemployed persons having
the same qualification as that of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 who are
absorbed.
4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners, learned AGP for
respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned advocate Ms. Rani Bharuka – Bora
holding for Mr. S.S. Bora for respondent No.4 and learned advocate
Mr. P.V. Barde for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 has placed on
record a copy of the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by this Court in
the case of Syed Moin Syed Hasan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others (Writ Petition No.12594 of 2021), wherein, according to him,
the absorption of the respondents was challenged. This Court, by a
reasoned order, has rejected the challenge, also on the ground of locus
standi of the petitioners therein. In the said decision this Court has
observed as follows:
“8. It would appear that the sixteen persons regularized under
the impugned Government Resolution were working for
more than six years on honorarium continuously. Their
entry in service is not a backdoor entry. An advertisement
was issued on 04th March, 2015. Pursuant to the
advertisement these persons along with others applied,
interviews were conducted and selection was made. It
cannot be said that their entry in service is through
backdoor. They were continuously discharging their
3 80.WP.493.23.odt
functions since the year 2015 on honorarium. The
Municipal Corporation took a decision to regularize their
services vide its resolution No. 147 dated 25th July, 2018.
9. As per the staffing pattern the sanctioned vacant posts exist
and they are regularized/absorbed on the sanctioned
vacant posts. It would also not be appropriate to continue
the employees for years together on honorarium and
temporary basis.
11. Under Section 53(3) of the said Act, the power of
appointing Municipal officers and servants whether
permanent or temporary vests with the Commissioner.
Proviso to Section 53(1) of the said Act, limits the
temporary appointments for loan works to the posts
equivalent to or higher in rank than the posts of Assistant
Municipal Commissioner for not more than six months. In
the present case, personnel regularized in service are
appointed as Sectional Engineer, Junior Engineer, Assistant
Engineer and Deputy Engineer below the rank of the
persons as referred to in proviso to Sub Section 1 of Section
53 of the said act.
12. While absorbing these personnel under the impugned
Government Resolution, no new posts were required to be
created. The vacant posts exists, the procedure was
followed, the applications were invited from the public at
large by issuing an advertisement, interviews were
conducted and thereafter appointments are made. It is not
case of illegality being committed while initially appointing
these persons.
13. It is brought to the notice of this Court that after absorbing
these sixteen persons under the impugned government
resolution, still twelve posts are vacant. The petitioner at
no material point of time had every applied pursuant to the
advertisement. The cause title of the petition also
demonstrate that the petitioner is a businessman. The
petitioner would not have locus standi to assail the same.”
6. Since the absorption of the respondents is already upheld by this
4 80.WP.493.23.odt
Court in the said order, we find no reason to entertain this petition.
Fact remains that the petitioners have no locus to challenge the
absorption of the respondent Nos.5 and 6. The writ petition being
devoid of merit is dismissed.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
habeeb/
Checking your session…