Petitioner challenged the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's order denying his promotion to the post of driver due to a standing government policy. The High Court dismissed the writ petition finding no merit in the claim.
Writ petition was dismissed with no order as to 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12 OF 2007
Nivrutti s/o Bankatrao Rajput,
Age : 41 years, Occu.: Government
Service, at present working as
Junior Care Taker with Government
Girls' Bal Gruha, Paithan,
District Aurangabad,
R/o : Government Quarter,
Civil Court Premises, Paithan,
Taluka ; Paithan,
District : Aurangabad
.. PETITIONER
(Ori. Applicant)
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Department of Women & Child, Development, M.S., Mantralaya, Mumbai – 322) The Commissioner, Women & Child Development, M.S., Pune – 13) The Project Officer, Women & Child Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 324) The District Women & Child Development Officer, Aurangabad5) The Government Girl's Bal Gruha, Paithan, Taluka : Paithan, District : Aurangabad .. RESPONDENTS (Original NonApplicants)2
wp12-2017
Mr. Avinash S. Deshmukh, advocate holding for
Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, advocate the petitioner
Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the respondents
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 13th SEPTEMBER, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned A.G.P. for the respondents.
2.Petitioner purports to take exception to the
order dated 4th April, 2006, passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad
(“Tribunal”, for short) in Original Application No.1020
of 2005.
3.Petitioner claims the post of a driver by
promotion on the basis of the Driver of Motor Cars and
Jeeps in Government Offices (Recruitment) Rules, 1980,
particularly, Rule 2 (a) thereof providing for the same
for those who are members of staff in Class-IV
Government Service and who possess qualifications and
experience mentioned in sub-clauses (ii), (iii), (v) and
3
wp12-2017
(vi) of clause (c) of said Rules.
4.The Tribunal has held that there has been a
policy decision of the State Government, which has been
reflected in the Government Resolution dated 10th
September, 2001, quoting its relevant extract had
considered that it was not possible to give direction to
consider case of the applicant (present petitioner) for
promotion to the post of driver. The extract referred to
above reads, thus,
^^¼v½ okgu pkydkaph fjDr gks.kkjh ins HkjY;koj fucZa/k rlsp vfrfjDr Bj.kk&;k okgu pkydkaps O;oLFkkiu-
¼1½ in Hkjrh laca/kkrhy loZlk/kkj.k 'kkldh; /kksj.kkP;k vuq"kaxkus dks.kR;kgh dkj.kkLro fjDr >kysY;k okgupkydkaph ins Hkj.;kar ;sÅ u;sr- vioknkRed ifjfLFkrhr lqn~/kk okgu pkydkaps in eatwj dsys tk.kkj ukgh o uohu fdaok fjDr in Hkj.;kr ;s.kkj ukgh-**
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been
in a position to point out that subsequently there has
been any change in the policy. It is not a case that the
petitioner alone has been singled out. Thus, the order
passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference.
In the set of these circumstances, there does not appear
to be any merit in the writ petition calling for
exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court.
wp12-2017
4
The writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to
costs.
npj/wp12-2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of driver.
Whether the Tribunal's order denying promotion based on government policy requires interference.
Nivrutti s/o Bankatrao Rajput
The State of Maharashtra
The Commissioner, Women & Child Development
The Project Officer, Women & Child Development
The District Women & Child Development Officer
The Government Girl's Bal Gruha, Paithan
Sunil P. Deshmukh
Sangitrao S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court