Kolhapur Municipal Corporation Recruitment Dispute: Supreme Court Allows Employees to Retain Jobs

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sunil Shamrao Jadhav & Ors. vs. Kolhapur Municipal Corporation & Ors., ruled in favor of employees appointed as Assistant Traffic Inspectors (ATI) in Kolhapur Municipal Corporation (KMC). The judgment upheld their employment despite a legal challenge to the relaxation of eligibility criteria.

The case revolved around the appointment of 15 Assistant Traffic Inspectors (ATIs) in 1992. A labor union challenged these appointments, arguing that the selected candidates lacked the required five years of experience in transport services. The Bombay High Court ruled against the employees, but the Supreme Court later overturned this decision.

Background of the Case

The Kolhapur Municipal Corporation (KMC) had invited applications for 16 ATI posts in 1992 through direct recruitment. According to Regulation 1 of the Corporation’s Recruitment Rules, 75% of these posts were to be filled by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. Regulation 6 allowed relaxation in the appointment process when no suitable candidates were found.

The advertisement for recruitment specified the following eligibility criteria:

• Age limit: 28 years (relaxation of 5 years for Scheduled Caste candidates)
• Graduate in any course from a recognized university
• Five years of experience in transport services

Since no applicants possessed the required experience, the Corporation relaxed the criteria and appointed 15 candidates as ATIs. This decision was later challenged by a labor union.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The labor union argued:

• The KMC had violated recruitment rules by appointing candidates who lacked the necessary experience.
• The corporation had no authority to relax the eligibility criteria without prior notification.
• The recruitment process was unfair to eligible candidates who might have applied if the experience requirement had been officially waived.
• The Bombay High Court’s judgment should be upheld to maintain transparency and fairness in public employment.

Respondent’s Arguments

The employees and Kolhapur Municipal Corporation defended the appointments, stating:

• The corporation had the authority to relax eligibility criteria under Regulation 6.
• The union had not challenged the recruitment notification but raised objections only after the appointments were made.
• The employees had already served for over two decades, making their removal unjust and impractical.
• Vacancies in the transport department made it necessary to retain the ATIs for smooth public transport operations.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted the following crucial points:

• The union had not challenged the notification at the time of recruitment but had raised objections only after appointments were made.
• The Corporation had exercised its power to relax eligibility requirements under Regulation 6.
• Out of 25 sanctioned ATI posts, only 15 were filled, and 10 remained vacant due to a lack of qualified candidates.
• Many posts in the feeder category (Traffic Controller) were also vacant due to a shortage of eligible employees.

The Supreme Court ruled:

“Having regard to the factual matrix, we are of the view that it is only in the interest of everybody and in the interest of justice that the appellants (and others who have been recruited along with them pursuant to the Notification issued in the year 1992) are allowed to continue in their posts as having been regularly recruited and appointed.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment and ruled that:

• The appointed employees could continue in their posts as regular ATIs.
• The Corporation should take steps to promote eligible candidates as soon as they become available.
• The High Court’s earlier ruling was set aside to the extent that it required fresh recruitment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision provided relief to the employees who had been in service for nearly 24 years. It acknowledged the practical challenges of recruitment in the transport sector while ensuring that qualified candidates would be promoted when available.

This ruling highlights the importance of balancing procedural compliance with practical workforce management, ensuring both fairness and operational efficiency in public employment.

Petitioner Name: Sunil Shamrao Jadhav & Ors..
Respondent Name: Kolhapur Municipal Corporation & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Place Of Incident: Kolhapur, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 12-07-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sunil Shamrao Jadhav vs Kolhapur Municipal C Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 12-07-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category