Bombay High Court

BALAJI RAMA SATPUTEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed for lack of locus standi, and the earlier order upholding the absorption of the employees stands.

Summary

Balaji Rama Satpute, an unemployed graduate, filed a writ petition challenging a Government Resolution dated 30‑09‑2021 that regularised and absorbed twenty municipal employees (respondents 5‑20) into the Parbhani Municipal Corporation. The petitioner claimed the absorption was illegal and sought a writ of certiorari to quash the resolution. 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), where the petition was dismissed for lack of locus standi. Relying on that precedent, the Court held that the petitioner, being a stranger and having never applied for the posts, had no standing to contest the regularisation. The Court also observed that the appointments complied with the procedural requirements of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, including advertisement, interview, and selection, and that vacant posts existed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the absorption of municipal employees under the Government Resolution.
Whether the absorption of respondents 5‑20 complied with the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, particularly Section 53.
Whether the procedure followed (advertisement, selection, regularisation) was lawful and did not constitute an illegal appointment.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act — s. 53(1) proviso, 53(3)

Subjects

locus standi
municipal corporation
regularisation of employees
Section 53
government resolution
writ of certiorari
illegal appointment
public employment

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43077-DB
1 143.WP.7879.22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 7879 OF 2022

BALAJI RAMA SATPUTE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : 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 Nos.5 to 20 : 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 30.09.2021 in respect of illegal
appointment / Absorption of the Respondents No. 5 to 20.

2. By Government Resolution dated 30.09.2021, respondent Nos.5

to 20 were absorbed in the service of respondent No.4 – Municipal

Corporation, Parbhani. The petitioner who is a stranger challenges the

Government Resolution and the absorption of the respondents.
2 143.WP.7879.22.odt

3. The petitioner claims to be an educated unemployed person

having the same qualification as that of the respondent Nos.5 to 20

who are absorbed.

4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, 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 to 20.

5. Learned advocate for the respondent Nos.5 to 20 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
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.
3 143.WP.7879.22.odt

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

Court in the said order, we find no reason to entertain this petition.

Fact remains that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the
4 143.WP.7879.22.odt

absorption of the respondent Nos.5 to 20. The writ petition being

devoid of merit is dismissed.

(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

habeeb/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…