Writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on the issue of seniority and deemed date. The Tribunal found that service as a Case Writer could not be counted for Junior Clerk cadre.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 188 OF 2003
Shri Gopalrao Bhimrao Ganachari ..Petitioner
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra
and another ...Respondent
...
Mr.R.C.Gosavi for the Petitioners.
Mr.J.S.Saluja, AGP for the Respondents Nos.1
& 2.
...
CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, &
R.G.KETKAR, JJ
DATED: 31th August, 2009
P.C.:
1.By this Petition the Petitioner
challenges the order dated 8th February, 2002
passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal in Original Application No.118 of
2002.
2
2.The facts that are relevant are that
the Petitioner joined service of the
Government as peon in Class-IV Cadre on
12-4-1950. Thereafter, he was appointed as
Case Writer on 12-1-1958. The post of Case
Writer was also in Class-IV. The Petitioner,
it appears was not a matriculate when he
joined the service in the Class-IV or when he
was appointed as the Case Writer. The
Petitioner passed his S.S.C. in October, 1959
and thereafter he was appointed as a Junior
Clerk by order dated 26-3-1960. The
PetitionerapproachedtheMaharasthra
Administrative Tribunal by filing his
Original Application. The principal prayers
in his Application were prayer clause 9(a)
and 9(b). They read as under:
9(a)Byasuitableorder/
direction, this Hon�ble Tribunal may
be pleased to quash and set Aside the
3
order dated 17-8-2000 passed by the
Respondent No.1 under which the
Petitioner was informed that the
posts of Case Writer and Clerk belong
to different cadres and though the
payscale of the said cadres is same,
that the said cadres are the
amalgamated and further that duties
and responsibilities of both cadres
are entirely different and therefore,
request of the Petitioner to count
his service rendered in the post of
Case Writer towards the post of
Junior clerk and to grant him deemed
date etc. and also to have pay
fixation cannot be accepted, and
accordingly, the Petitioner be
granted all the consequential service
benefits.
4
order/direction, this Hon.Tribunal
may be pleased to hold and declare
that the Petitioner was/is entitled
to count his service in the post of
Case Writer rendered from 12-1-1958
to 25-3-1960 for the purpose of
seniority and for other purpose in
all the subsequent posts and
consequently, the Petitioner be given
deemed date and all monetary
benefits.
3.TheMaharashtraAdministrative
Tribunal decided the O.A. Filed by the
Petitioner by order dated 8-2-2002. It held
that the service of the Petitioner as a Case
Writer cannot be counted for the purpose of
fixing his seniority in the post of Junior
Clerk, and therefore, he cannot be granted
5
deemed date in the Cadre of Junior Clerk
considering his service in the post of Case
Writer. It is this order which is
challenged in this petition.
4.The learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner submitted that one Mr.Kulkarni
joined the service after the Petitioner, but
service rendered by him in Class-IV has been
considered for the purpose of his promotion,
whereas the services of the Petitioner
rendered in Class-IV has not been so
considered. Therefore, Mr.Kulkarni was
promoted to the higher post before the
Petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that
it is also not correct that for being
eligible to the post of Junior Clerk,
matriculation was essential educational
qualification.
6
5.Now, perusal of the order of the
Maharasthra Administrative Tribunbal shows
that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
has recorded a categorical finding that for
being eligible to the post of Junior Clerk
the essential educational qualification is
Matriculation. The Petitioner passed his
S.S.C. Examination in October, 1959 and he
was promoted to the post of Junior Clerk on
26-3-1960. The learned Counsel appearing for
the Petitioner is not able to show to us that
the finding recorded by the Maharashtra
AdministrativeTribunalthatthe
Matriculation was essential educational
qualification for the post of Junior Clerk is
wrong. The learned Counsel submitted that in
the case of Mr.Kulkarni, the services
rendered by him in the post of Guard was
taken into consideration. But the learned
Counsel could not show that the finding
7
recorded by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal in its order that even the services
rendered by Mr.Kulkarni as Security Guard was
not taken into consideration while fixing his
seniority is wrong. The learned Counsel also
made a grievance as the service rendered by
the Petitioner in Class-IV was not taken into
consideration for the purpose of fixing his
seniority in the cadre of Junior Clerk, then
how Kulkarni came to be promoted in 1994 to
the higher post and the Petitioner came to be
promoted to the higher post in 1996. In our
opinion, this question cannot be probed by
us. Because Perusal of the Original
Application showsthatpromotionof
Mr.Kulkarni to any higher post was not under
challengebeforetheMaharashtra
Administrative Tribunal. Mr.Kulkarni was also
not joined as a party to the O.A. In the
absence of Mr.Kulkarni neither his placement
8
in the seniority list as a junior clerk can
be probed nor validity or otherwise of his
promotion to the higher post can be
considered.
6.Taking overall view of the matter,
therefore, in our opinion, no fault can be
found with the order of the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal. Petition, therefore,
fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No
order as to costs.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to count service rendered as a Case Writer towards seniority and deemed date in the Junior Clerk cadre.
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal correctly held thatmatriculationwas the essential educational qualification for the post of Junior Clerk.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Gopalrao Bhimrao Ganachari
The State of Maharashtra and another
D.K.Deshmukh
R.G.Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court