Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-AUG:17191-DB
wp3355a3356o17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3355 OF 2017
Satish Mallikarjun Satpute,
Age : 50 years, Occu: Service,
R/o C/o Z.P. High School,
Salgara (D), Tq. Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmanabad.
…Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through the Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
Resources Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.
Dist. Osmanabad.
… Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.3356 OF 2017
Prashant s/o Chandrakant Mulge,
Age : 41 years, Occu: Service,
R/o C/o Z.P. High School,
Sindphal, Tq. Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmanabad.
…Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through the Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
wp3355a3356o17
2
Resources Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.
Dist. Osmanabad.
… Respondents
…
Shri Sanjay A. Wakure, advocate for the petitioners.
Shri V.K. Kotecha and Shri K.N. Lokhande, AGPs for respondent
No.1/ State in the respective petitions.
Shri Shambhuraje Deshmukh, advocate for respondent No.2/ ZP.
…
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT
&
SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
Reserved on : 16 April 2026
Pronounced on : 20 April 2026
JUDGMENT ( Per Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J.) :-
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of the parties.
3. Since both these petitions involve similar facts and
issues, they are being decided by this common judgment.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they were
wp3355a3356o17
3
appointed as ‘Parichar’ in Class IV category vide appointment
orders dated 11.01.2005 by respondent No.2 Zilla Parishad.
Thereafter, the petitioners came to be promoted to the post of
Junior Assistant, Class III, vide orders dated 15.02.2008 (the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.3355/2017) and dated 30.07.2011
(the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3356/2017).
5. According to the petitioners, as per Government
Resolutions dated 23.08.1996 and 06.12.2010, after their
appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, they were required to
pass the examination of English and Marathi Typing of 30 words
per minute (WPM) within two years from the date of their
appointment. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners could not
submit the said certificates within prescribed period, therefore,
their services came to be terminated vide orders dated 22.02.2011
and 26.06.2012, respectively, instead of reverting the petitioners
back to earlier post of Class IV. However, vide fresh appointment
orders dated 05.05.2011 and 29.09.2012, the petitioners have
been again appointed on the post of Parichar, Class IV. It is the
case of the petitioners that these appointments came to be treated
as fresh appointments, therefore, they are not getting benefits of
wp3355a3356o17
4
their earlier service rendered by them since 2005 till their
termination on 22.02.2011 and 26.06.2012.
6. The learned advocate Shri Wakure appearing for the
petitioners submitted that the issue raised in these petitions as
regards termination, reversion, continuity in service and
entitlement of employees of Class III category on achieving
requisite qualification, is decided by this Court in Writ Petition
No.1919/2013, Aurangabad Bench, (Satish Shahaji Fand vs. The
State of Maharashtra and others) vide judgment dated 18.12.2013
and this Court granted reinstatement to the petitioner therein with
continuity in service and back wages. The judgment dated
18.12.2013 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and the SLP came to be dismissed. According to the learned
advocate, there are multiple petitions filed by similarly placed
employees and those petitions have been allowed by this Court.
Hence, the learned advocate submitted that this case is also
covered by the judgment in Satish Fand (supra).
7. Per contra, the learned advocate Shri Deshmukh
appearing for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the petitions and
submitted that pursuant to Government Resolutions dated
wp3355a3356o17
5
23.08.1996 and 06.12.2010, the candidates are required to pass
the examination of English and Marathi typing within a period of
two years from their appointment. The appointment of the
petitioners itself was on the basis of the said condition and since
the petitioners have failed to obtain requisite certificate, their
services were rightly terminated by respondent No.2.
8. The learned advocate Shri Deshmukh fairly
submitted that since the petitioners have again made applications
for fresh appointment, therefore, they came to be appointed on
the post of Parichar. The learned advocate, however, fairly
conceded that it is matter of record that the judgment relied upon
by the petitioners in the case of Satish Fand (supra), is in respect
of similarly placed employees.
9. The learned AGPs adopted the submissions of the
learned advocate Shri Deshmukh and submitted that in view of
the judgment in Satish Fand (supra), appropriate order be passed.
10. After hearing the learned advocates for the
respective parties at length, it is clear that the issue involved in
the instant petitions, has already been considered and decided by
this Court in Satish Fand (supra). The said view has been
wp3355a3356o17
6
consistently followed by this Court in several other petitions in
respect of similarly situated employees. In Satish Fand (supra),
this Court has observed in paragraph Nos.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as
under:-
“6. It is apparent that, inspite of opportunities, the
petitioner could not produce the necessary certificate
regarding Typewriting. The Government Resolution
dated 23.8.1996 read with Resolution dated 6.12.2010
require even those who are appointed against
compassionate grounds, to submit certificate
regarding passing of typing within six months of
appointment. There does not appear to be any error on
the part of the respondents to insist that, on
appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, petitioner
was required to produce the certificate regarding
Typing examination as per requirement and, in
default, he was liable to be proceeded against. The
appointment order dated 30.7.2011 was subject to the
Government Resolutions referred in the order. The
Government Resolution dated 23.8.1996, read with
the Government Resolution dated 6.12.2010, clearly
provide that if the necessary Typewriting certificate is
not produced, the service was liable to be terminated.
7. Attention of the learned Counsel of the respondents
was drawn to the provisions of 'lien'. Learned
Counsel for respondent no.2 was asked as to why
petitioner was not reverted back to the earlier post of
PARICHAR. Learned Counsel for respondent no.2
has then, relying on a communication dated
11.12.2013 from Chief Executive Officer of Zilla
Parishad, stated that petitioner can be appointed
afresh to Group D post and that at present there were
vacancies available.
8. Rule 20 of Maharashtra Civil Services (General
Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981, refers to
acquiring and ceasing of a lien. The Rule reads as
under:
"20. Acquiring and ceasing of a lien.
Unless in any case it be otherwise provided in these
wp3355a3356o17
7
rules, a Government servant on substantive
appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on
that post and ceases to hold any lien previously
acquired on any other post."
Looking to the above, if the appointment order
of the petitioner is seen, he was appointed on
compassionate ground in Group D as PARICHAR
against a vacant post vide order dated 17.1.2005. He
worked on the post till 30.7.2011 when as per
Government Resolution dated 23.8.1996 order dated
30.7.2011 was issued of direct appointment in Group
C. It is not the case of the respondents that the earlier
appointment was temporary or that it was not a
substantive appointment or that the post was not
permanent.
9. Rule 25 of the above Rules reads as under:
“25. When a lien or a suspended lien cannot be terminated.
(1) Except as provided in sub-rule (2) below, a
Government servant's lien on a post may in no
circumstances be terminated even with his consent, if
the result will be to leave him without a lien or a
suspended lien upon a permanent post.
(2) A Government servant's lien on a post shall stand
terminated on his acquiring a lien on a permanent
post (whether under the Central Government or State
Government) outside the cadre on which he is borne."
10. It is clear that once a lien has been acquired, the same
cannot be terminated even with the consent of the
employee if the result would be to leave him without
a lien or suspended lien upon a permanent post. The
petitioner was appointed vide orders dated 17.1.2005
as a Class IV employee with one of the conditions
mentioning that he would be accommodated in Group
C posts when the same becomes available. Later, vide
order dated 30.7.2011, he was appointed to Class III
post. In the facts and circumstances and looking to the
length of service, Petitioner's lien on earlier Class D
post will have to be accepted and retained till he
could acquire lien in the Class C post. If he was
unable to pass the examination, the respondents could
wp3355a3356o17
8
not have terminated the service itself. There is no
question of appointment afresh. Respondents were
required to post the petitioner back again in his earlier
post of PARICHAR. When he already had a lien to
that post, he could not have been terminated from
higher post in the manner in which it has been done.
If this is not accepted it would be always possible to
lure an employee to higher post and later weed him
out on the plea of not complying the requirement.”
11. On the basis of above observation, this Court in
Satish Fand, quashed and set aside the termination order and
directed reinstatement of the petitioner therein with continuity in
service and back wages. In various writ petitions, this Court has
followed the above order and granted same reliefs by considering
Rules 20 and 25 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General
Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981, thereby giving a right of
lien.
12. Though the learned advocate for respondent No.2
Zilla Parishad submitted that the Government Resolutions which
were considered at the time of passing impugned orders, be
considered, however, we find that this Court has already taken
the view in Satish Fand (supra) by considering those Government
Resolutions. In the present case also, it is not disputed that the
petitioners were substantively appointed on Class IV posts and
wp3355a3356o17
9
had acquired lien on the said posts. Upon their promotion to
Class III posts, such lien could not have been terminated in
absence of acquisition of lien on the higher post. Therefore, upon
failure to acquire the typing qualification, the only permissible
course was reversion and not termination. Hence, in our
considered view, it will be appropriate to allow the instant
petitions by quashing the impugned orders.
13. For the above reasons, both Writ Petitions are
allowed as under:-
(a) The impugned orders of termination dated
22.02.2011 and 26.06.2012 are quashed and set aside.
(b) The petitioners shall be reinstated in service on their
original posts of ‘Parichar’ (Class IV) w.e.f. 22.02.2011 and
26.06.2012, respectively.
(c) The petitioners shall be entitled to continuity of
service from their initial appointment, for all service benefits
including pensionary benefits.
(d) Back wages shall be paid accordingly.
14. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
kps (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) ( KISHORE C. SANT , J.)