A writ petition challenging the dismissal of an original application regarding seniority and posting. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, finding the petitioner lacked locus standi due to inordinate delay and subsequent job changes, rejecting the writ petition.
Writ petition rejected; Rule discharged.
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.
WP.1994/2017(3)
1
mnm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1994 OF 2017
Dasharath Lakhan Sonawane ...Petitioner Vs.
The Principal Secretary General Administration Department, 14-A, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors.
...Respondents
Mr. Amit A. Gharte, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. S.S. Bhende, A.G.P for the Respondents
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :5TH APRIL, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]
matter is heard finally.
WP.1994/2017(3)
2
Service Commission(MPSC) dated 19th March, 1993 to fill up 1000
posts of Clerk-cum-Typist required in Mantralaya and in various other Government offices in Mumbai. The Petitioner was selected as Clerk-cum-Typist by the MPSC in 1993 and by appointment letter dated 21st October, 1994 the Petitioner was appointed in the department of Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai. However, as there was no vacancy in the said department he was appointed in the Directorate of Art as Junior Clerk vide appointment letter 31st
October, 1994. He joined the said post on 2nd November, 1994.
can only rise to the post of Superintendent which is a non-gazetted
3 WP.1994/2017(3)
class III post. In the O.A. the Petitioner had sought a declaration that due process and procedure was not followed by allotting candidates in Mantralaya and Greater Mumbai Division. He had also sought direction to the Respondent to allot / post him in Mantralaya Division and further grant deemed sanction as granted to other similarly situated candidates in Mantralaya Division. He also sought some other consequential reliefs.
5. When the O.A was preferred the Respondents contended that
there was delay in preferring the O.A. Hence, Miscellaneous Application No.280 of 2016 was preferred in O.A. No. 743 of 2015 for condonation of delay. According to the Petitioner the delay is only 2 years 3 months and 20 days in preferring the O.A. This period was computed based on the fact that the provisional seniority list dated 31st May, 2012 was published on the website of the State Government and it was then that the Petitioner realized that a fraud / mistake was committed by the Government of Maharashtra while allotting the Petitioner to an office outside the Mantralaya in 1993. As the Petitioner was claiming that he should
WP.1994/2017(3)
4
have been posted to Mantralaya in 1993 itself on the basis of his seniority in the merit list prepared by the MPSC in 1993, the Tribunal held that the delay was, therefore, of 23 years and the O.A was dismissed as it was misconceived.
WP.1994/2017(3)
5
necessary to state some development which took place after the Petitioner was appointed in the year 1994. The Petitioner joined as Junior Clerk in the office of Directorate of Art on 2nd November, 1994. However, thereafter he joined the post of Assistant in the office of Maharashtra State Commission for Women. He worked in the said Commission from 24th November, 2003 to 14th January, 2004. Thereafter the Petitioner was selected as Senior Clerk in the office of Directorate of Technical Education, Regional Office, Mumbai, which post he joined on 15th January, 2004. From this chain of events it is quite clear that the Petitioner has no locus standi to claim appointment in Mantralaya as Junior Clerk in the year 1994. It is pertinent to note that these facts were not disclosed by the Petitioner in his O.A. Moreover there is nothing on record to suggest that the posts under the aforesaid Commission are posts under the Government of Maharashtra.
web site of the Respondent is utterly unbelievable. This document
6 WP.1994/2017(3)
is not a G.R but a circular regarding final seniority list of Clerk and Clerk-Typists working in Mantralaya as on 1st January, 2012. Such lists have been published many a times in the past and there never was any objection from the Petitioner. Learned AGP states that from the year 2009 they have started uploading such seniority list on the website. However, it is seen that the Petitioner had not raised any objection to the said seniority list prior to filing his O.A.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge his seniority list after a delay of over 23 years and subsequent changes in employment.
Dasharath Lakhan Sonawane
The Principal Secretary General Administration Department
V.K. TAHILRAMANI
M.S. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
