Bombay High Court
Smt. Minal Mangesh Toraskar W/O Mangesh ... vs Union Of India Thr The Director General , ... on 18 April, 2024
404-WP.5655.2024
Jvs.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5655 OF 2024
Smt. Minal Mangesh Toraskar }
w/o. Mangesh Mohan Toraskar } Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Anr. } Respondents
Mr. Vicky Nagrani for the petitioner.
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE: 18th APRIL 2024 P.C.:
1. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 21st June 2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall bring on record the O. M. dated 11th December 2006 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India within a week.
3. The case set up by the petitioner is that she, though was appointed initially on temporary/ad-hoc basis vide order dated 12th December 1991 against the post of Hindi Typist, however, by the subsequent order dated 18th August 1992, she was appointed on ad-hoc basis against the post of Clerk Grade II.
Submission, thus, is that the post against which the petitioner's initial appointment was made, namely, the post of Hindi Typist, was filled up on account of appointment of regularly selected candidate by the Staff Selection Commission, however, the post against which she was subsequently appointed vide order dated 18th August 1992 was a duly sanctioned post which has all along 1 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2024 16:27:41 ::: 404-WP.5655.2024 been available in the Department as is apparent from various recommendations made by the Department for her regularization.
4. It is further stated that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has neither been taken into consideration by the Additional Director General (E)(WZ), All India Radio and Durdarshan, Mumbai while passing the order dated 23rd December 2019 nor by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Drawing our attention to the order dated 23rd December 2019 passed by the Additional Director, whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization in service was rejected, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only reason indicated therein is that the post against which the petitioner was initially appointed, i.e., the post of Hindi Typist was filled in by way of making appointment of regularly selected candidate, however, the said order does not reflect upon the sanctioned post against which the petitioner was subsequently appointed vide the order dated 18th August 1992 i.e. the post of Clerk Grade II.
5. It is, thus, the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's appointment vide order dated 18th August 1992 was made against a duly sanctioned and vacant post of Clerk Grade II and therefore, her claim for regularization is not against the post of Hindi Typist, but against the post of Clerk Grade II.
6. We, thus, direct the respondents to file their affidavit in reply within four weeks not only meeting the para-wise averments made in the writ petition, but also reflecting upon the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
Digitally signed by JAYANTJAYANT VISHWANATH
VISHWANATH SALUNKE
SALUNKE Date: 2024.04.18
18:30:43 +0530
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
2
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2024 16:27:41 :::