THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VAIJAPUR THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICERversusDADASAHEB DAGUJI DALE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:24176
             Dilwale                                       1                   988-WP-9811-19.odt




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 988 WRIT PETITION NO. 9811 OF 2019

                     The Municipal Council Vaijapur Through Its Chief Officer
                                               VERSUS
                                Dadasaheb Daguji Dale And Others
                                                  ...
             Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sonavane Narendra D.
             AGP for Respondent-State: Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh
             Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Ms. Wankhede Preeti R.
                                                  ...

                                       CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE          : 17.06.2026

             PER COURT :
             1.        Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

             2.        By this petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

             11.07.2018       passed    by    the   Additional   Divisional   Commissioner,

             Aurangabad, whereby the learned Additional Commissioner allowed the

             appeal filed by respondent No.1.

             3.        Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sonavane, submits that the

             petitioner is Municipal Council, Vaijapur, constituted under the provisions

             of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial

             Townships Act, 1965. He submits that respondent No.1 was initially

             appointed on daily wages as a worker on 1st October 1992 and was made

             permanent on 30th December 2000 with effect from 1st January 2001 as a

             Chowkidar at Vaijapur. One Assistant Librarian, Mr. G. M. Rajput, retired
Dilwale                                   2                 988-WP-9811-19.odt


on 31st December 2012. According to him, the said post was not a

promotional post and was required to be filled by direct recruitment.

However, due to administrative reasons, respondent No.1 was asked to

work on the said post for a period of six months. He further submits that

respondent No.1 was permitted to work on the said post temporarily

from 1st January 2013. Thereafter, the petitioner passed a Resolution

dated 12th February 2013 promoting respondent No.1 to the post of

Assistant Librarian and forwarded a proposal to the State Government.

4.        He further submits that the Chief Officer appointed respondent

No.1 for a period of six months on the condition that the decision of the

Three-Member Committee would be binding and, if the proposal was not

approved by the State Government, respondent No.1 would be reverted

from the said post. He submits that some employees raised a grievance

before the District Collector contending that the post of Assistant

Librarian was required to be filled by direct recruitment and that

respondent No.1 was illegally appointed by promotion. Pursuant thereto,

the District Collector directed an inquiry. It was found that there were

employees senior to respondent No.1 and, consequently, the Chief Officer,

by order dated 11th September 2013, cancelled the promotion order

issued in favour of respondent No.1.

5.        He submits that, being aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1

preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner and the same

came to be allowed thereby reinstating respondent no.1 on the said post.
Dilwale                                  3                   988-WP-9811-19.odt


Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the post in

question was required to be filled through direct recruitment. He submits

that, initially, respondent No.1 was temporarily promoted due to

administrative exigencies, but since the post was required to be filled by

direct recruitment and not by promotion. The Chief Officer rightly

cancelled the promotion pursuant to the directions issued by the

Collector. He further submits that respondent No.1 retired from service

and, after cancellation of the promotion order on 11th September 2013,

he never worked on the post of Assistant Librarian. Therefore, the order

passed by the Additional Commissioner deserves to be set aside.

6.        Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Ms. Preeti

Wankhede, vehemently submits that the staffing pattern of 2005 had

ceased to operate and when respondent No.1 came to be promoted in the

year 2013, no such staffing pattern was in existence. She invited my

attention to the permanency order issued in favour of respondent No.1.

She further submits that the Chief Officer had not forwarded the proposal

before the Three-Member Committee and, therefore, there was no fault

on the part of respondent No.1. She submits that the Municipal Council

itself passed a Resolution promoting respondent No.1 and only because

some employees made a complaint to the Collector, the promotion order

came to be cancelled without challenging the earlier order granting

permanency to respondent No.1.
Dilwale                                     4                   988-WP-9811-19.odt


7.        She submits that, being aggrieved by the said action, respondent

No.1 preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner, who rightly

considered the matter. She invited my attention to the order passed by

the Additional Divisional Commissioner. She submits that respondent

No.1 possessed the requisite qualifications of B.A., B.Lib. and L.T.C.,

which were necessary for appointment to the post of Assistant Librarian.

Therefore, according to her, the Municipal Council rightly promoted

respondent No.1. She further relied upon Government Resolution dated

12th February 2018 and submits that the staffing pattern dated 5th July

2005 was no longer operative.

8.        She further submits that even assuming that the post of Assistant

Librarian was required to be filled by direct recruitment, no

advertisement was issued by the Municipal Council for years together for

filling the said post. She submits that there were directions issued by the

Municipal Administration on 31st December 2003 for constituting a

Three-Member Committee to take a decision regarding appointments;

however, neither the petitioner nor respondent No.2 took any steps in

that regard. Therefore, in absence of any decision by the Three-Member

Committee, the action taken by the Chief Officer was illegal.

9.        She further submits that after reversion of respondent No.1,

another person, namely Mr. A.B. Chandekar, came to be appointed

though he did not possess the requisite qualifications. On the contrary,

respondent No.1 had acquired the necessary qualifications. Therefore, she
Dilwale                                     5                  988-WP-9811-19.odt


submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed and the order passed

by the Additional Divisional Commissioner deserves to be confirmed.

10.       Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon

perusal of the record, including the appointment orders and staffing

pattern, there is no dispute that the post of Assistant Librarian is required

to be filled through direct recruitment. It is also not in dispute that

respondent No.1 was initially given charge on a temporary basis and was

thereafter promoted pursuant to a Resolution passed by the Municipal

Council. There is also no dispute that respondent No.1 possessed the

requisite qualifications.

11.       However, the fact remains that the post of Assistant Librarian was

required to be filled through direct recruitment. Therefore, even though

the Municipal Council passed a Resolution promoting respondent No.1,

the same cannot be said to be legal and proper.

12.       As regards the contention of respondent No.1 that the staffing

pattern of 2005 had ceased to operate and, therefore, the promotion

granted in the year 2013 was valid, the same cannot be accepted. Merely

because a new staffing pattern was proposed and had not come into

force, it cannot be said that the earlier staffing pattern ceased to operate.

In absence of any new staffing pattern coming into force, the earlier

staffing pattern continued to govern the field.

13.       Therefore, once it is held that the Municipal Council had no

authority to promote a person to a post required to be filled through
Dilwale                                      6                  988-WP-9811-19.odt


direct recruitment, the Resolution passed by the Municipal Council was

clearly illegal. Pursuant to the complaint received, the District Collector

directed an inquiry and rightly instructed the Chief Officer to cancel the

promotion order. These material aspects were not considered by the

Additional Divisional Commissioner.

14.       Merely because a proposal was submitted and no decision was

taken by the Three-Member Committee cannot be a ground to perpetuate

an illegality committed by the petitioner while promoting respondent

No.1. After intervention of the District Collector, the promotion order was

rightly cancelled by the Chief Officer. More particularly, since 11th

September 2013, respondent No.1 was never allowed to continue on the

post of Assistant Librarian and subsequently superannuated from service.

15.       Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the

order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner cannot be

sustained in the eyes of law.

16.       In view of the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed. The

order      dated    11.07.2018    passed   by    the   Additional   Divisional

Commissioner, Aurangabad is hereby quashed and set aside.




                                           [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                     JUDGE