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 2026:BHC-AUG:24176 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