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. 2026:BHC-AUG:43077-DB 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/