14-WP.12498.2025.doc Salunke IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12498 OF 2025 Ashok Kumar Ramprasad Nigam } Petitioner Versus The Municipal Commissioner, } Mira-Bhayander Municipal } Corporation & Ors. } Respondents Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mayuresh Lagu, Mr. Sagar Patil and Mr. Shashank Dubey, Advocates for Respondent No. 1. Mr. B. V. Samant, Additional Government Pleader with Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent No. 2. Mr. Kuldeep R. Singh i/b. Mr. Burhan Bhukhari, Advocates for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE :9th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C.: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of parties. 2. The Petitioner claims to be a vigilant citizen of India, editor of a Hindi weekly newspaper and a social worker. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following substantive reliefs:- 1 JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Digitally signed by JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Date: 2026.09.13 15:18:35 +0530 14-WP.12498.2025.doc “a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order and direction against the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to investigate and/or review the past and present illegal appointments and promotions within the MBMC, as outlined in this petition and thereafter, dismiss and/or terminate the illegally appointed officer and/or demote the illegally promoted officers to their original post as per their qualification; b. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to Direct Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 to issue a detailed report on the steps taken to address these illegalities and the actions taken against the responsible individuals.” 3. The relevant Facts are summarized as under:- 4. In the year 1994, the Respondent No. 3 was in the employment of Respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation, as Junior Engineer holding a Diploma in Construction Technology on contractual basis. The said Respondent is stated to have continued to work for more than 240 days. 5. The Respondent No. 3 claims to be working with the Respondent No. 1 Corporation on a permanent sanctioned post. However, his name appears to be shown as an employee on contractual basis. 6. The Respondent No. 3 aggrieved by the proposed action of his termination at the behest of the Respondent Corporation (1st Respondent) he filed a complaint before the Industrial Court seeking declaration to the effect that the Respondent No.1 – Corporation be directed to confirm the Respondent No.3 as permanent employee and to pay the difference in wages at par with other permanent employees. 2 14-WP.12498.2025.doc Also that the Corporation be restrained from terminating services of Respondent No. 3. 7. The Industrial Court while allowing such complaint vide its Order dated 5th July 2001, inter -alia held that the Respondent Corporation has engaged in unfair practices under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the (Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“MRTU and PULP Act”) by refusing to pay wages and providing service conditions to the Respondent No.3 at par with regular Junior Engineers working with the Respondent Corporation. 8. The Industrial Court vide its Order dated 5th July 2001, further restrained the Corporation from committing such unfair labour practice, directing it to pay wages to Respondent No.3 and ensure that he be granted the same service conditions as applicable to permanent employees. 9. In the afore-said factual backdrop, we have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that a contractual employee can never become a permanent employee without undergoing the selection process and that the backdoor entry is not permissible in Government services. He submitted that the authorities cannot recruit the staff/employees merely by passing resolutions, which are contrary to the statutory procedure and service rules. He thus submitted that the Petition be Allowed. 10. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the 3 14-WP.12498.2025.doc Respondent Corporation would contend that the Petitioner has no locus to file this Petition. On this ground alone the Petition be dismissed. The Respondent No.3 is made permanent in service pursuant to the order passed by the Industrial Court, which has attained finality. On a careful perusal thereof, it is a speaking and well - reasoned Order on the basis of and pursuant to which, the Respondent No.3 was appointed as permanent employee. Accordingly, the Petition is devoid of merits and ought to be dismissed. 11. Upon hearing the respective parties and upon perusal of record we find that a belated attempt has been made to oust Respondent no.3 from the service, who was Junior Engineer as permanent employee, with effect from 18th August 2001, pursuant to the order of the Industrial Court dated 5th July 2001. The said order has attained finality as the same has not been carried in Appeal. 12. At the initial stage of his appointment, there was no such plea set up or even raised that he does not possess the requisite/necessary qualifications. Moreover, his promotion/ financial upgradation has also been granted by the Respondent Corporation, without any objection being raised, as the record of the case would also indicate. 13. We are of the considered view that at this stage, we are not inclined to oust the person already in service of the Respondent Corporation and that too at the behest of the Petitioner, who is totally a stranger to the proceedings. The 4 14-WP.12498.2025.doc Petitioner is unable to demonstrate from the record/pleadings the prejudice caused to him in the given factual matrix, in light of which this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be entertained. 14. For all the above reasons, the Petition lacks merit and is accordingly Dismissed. Rule is Discharged. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 5