This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a seniority list and promotion decisions. The court upheld the Tribunal's order, relying on precedent that long delays in raising objections bar later challenges to initial appointments and seniority.
Writ petition dismissed; rule discharged; no costs.
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 wp 1716.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1716 OF 2002
Raghunath S/o Ramkrishnaji Borkar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri A. I. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. M. A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri Shaikh, Advocate h/f Shri A. S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND A. I. S. CHEEMA, JJ.
DATE : 26TH MARCH, 2015.
PER COURT :
. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel submits that, the petitioner had filed original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenging the seniority list. So also promotion given to present respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The Tribunal did not consider the merits of the contentions canvassed by the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed as Exploration Assistant in the year 1978. The petitioner was appointed on 23.02.1981. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were not qualified for the said post. The petitioner possesses the required qualification. The person who has acquired the qualification first
2 wp 1716.02
is considered to be senior, though he may have been recruited subsequently. The learned counsel submits that, the seniority list was published in the year 2000 and as the seniority list was published in the year 2000, the same gave cause of action for the petitioner to challenge the same. As such, it was erroneous on the part of the Tribunal to contend that after the petitioner is not given promotion, the petitioner is challenging the seniority of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The learned counsel submits that, the Tribunal ought to have considered the issue of initial appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
3 wp 1716.02
said process.
[ A. I. S. CHEEMA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/March 15
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in not reconsidering the seniority of the petitioner despite his subsequent challenge only after the seniority list was published.
Whether the petitioner can challenge the initial appointment of other employees after a long lapse of time without raising an objection earlier.
Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the writ petition and upholding the impugned order based on settled judicial precedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. A. Abdul Majeed Vs. State of Kerala and othersFollowed¶4
2001 AIR SCW 2888 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raghunath S/o Ramkrishnaji Borkar
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No. 3
Respondent No. 4
S. V. Gangapurwala
A. I. S. Cheema
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
