A writ petition challenging an absorption order requiring the petitioner to pass a departmental examination. The court distinguished the facts from a specific precedent where exemptions existed, finding the requirement reasonable for the current petitioner.
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.
4. civil wp 5340-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5340 OF 2017
Girish Ramaraoji Alone
.. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.. Respondents
Appearances
| Mrs. Leena Patil | Advocate for the Petitioner |
|---|---|
| Mr. N.C. Walimbe | AGP for the State |
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 25, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
AGP for the State / Respondents.
forthwith and the matter is heard finally.
Department of Government of Maharashtra. He was
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 8
4. civil wp 5340-17.doc
declared surplus in his department i.e Dairy Development Department and was absorbed in Revenue and Forest Department by order dated 29.5.2010. Respondent No. 1 was insisting that the petitioner has to pass departmental examination as envisaged by Rule 1 of the Maharashtra Probationary Naib-Tahsildars Departmental Examination Rules 2000, hence, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents asking him to pass the departmental examination consequent upon the absorption as NaibTahsildar as unconstitutional and illegal and hence, prayed that it should be quashed and set aside.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 8
4. civil wp 5340-17.doc
departmental examination.
examination in absorbed post.
Naib-Tahsildar is by nomination where a Naib-Tahsildar selected by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) is required to pass departmental examination within
two years and three chances. Failure to pass the
examination will result in discharge from service. The other
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 8
4. civil wp 5340-17.doc
mode of appointment is by promotion from the post of Awal
Karkooon / Circle Officer. Such persons are required to pass the Revenue Qualifying Examinations. This is to ensure that a person appointed as Naib-Tahsildar is well conversant with the relevant laws etc. which he has to administer as NaibTahsildar. For Awal Karkoons / Circle Officers who are promoted from the post of Junior Clerks / Talathi, exemption
is provided from passing qualifying examination under relevant rules after crossing the age of 45 years. That is done as they acquire a lot of knowledge of the relevant laws and working of the Revenue Department due to long experience. Learned AGP submitted that the petitioner neither has any experience of working in Revenue Department nor is he ready to acquire relevant knowledge
by passing the departmental examination. Learned AGP further submitted that Condition No. 3 of the order of absorption of the petitioner dated 29.5.2010 states that the petitioner was required to pass Revenue Qualifying
Examination. Learned AGP submitted that the petitioner had
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 8
4. civil wp 5340-17.doc
accepted the order of absorption subject to the conditions attached to the aforesaid orders. Now the petitioner cannot be allowed to turn around and claim that he is not required to pass the Revenue Qualifying Examination.
State Excise, Group 'B'. We would like to quote paragraph 8 of the said order which reads thus:-
"8. Therefore, in our considered view insistence of passing departmental examination by the applicants is ill founded and the same cannot insisted by the respondents. Thus, those condition incorporated in the order of appointment has to be declared as inoperative and not applicable to the applicants herein. In fact, the Government or the concerned department should have taken a decision to issue order of exemption from passing the departmental examination by the applicants as both the applicants now have crossed the age of 45 years. In view of this aspect of the matter and considering the fact that when the applicants were initially appointed as District Prohibition Propaganda Officer they were not required to pass the departmental examination as it was not insisted and when they are declared as surplus and on the other policy they have been 'reappointed', the Government should not have incorporated such
jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 8
4. civil wp 5340-17.doc
condition in the appointment order which in other words imposing additional condition which is onerous now for applicants to pass the said examination on account of age the applicants have been reached now."
(emphasis supplied)
On going through the decision in O.A. Nos. 1 of 2008
and 127 of 2008, we find that the applicants in the said O.A. were working as District Prohibition Propaganda Officer in the same department and they were not required to pass the departmental examination as it was not insisted upon. In the present case, the petitioner was working in different department i.e Dairy Development Board and he had absolutely no knowledge of working of the Revenue Department. Condition No. 3 of the Absorption order states that there is huge difference between the work in Dairy Development Department and as a Naib-Tahsildar. In the Revenue Department, a Naib-Tahsildar has to pass either Revenue Qualifying Examination for Awal Karkoon (Circle Officer), in case of promotion to the post or pass departmental examination on nomination to that post. Exemption is granted under Revenue and Qualifying Examination Rules themselves to those who cross the age of
jfoanz vkacsjdj 6 of 8
4. civil wp 5340-17.doc
45 years. The G.R. dated 1.11.1977 has no application in the present case. The rationale for such exemption as stated in G.R. dated 1.11.1977 from passing the Revenue Qualifying Examination has to be understood in the proper context. A person acquires adequate knowledge of the working of a department due to long experience. The petitioner's case is entirely different. He was earlier working in the Dairy Development Department where the work is completely different from the work he had to do as Naib-Tahsildar, hence, in our opinion, this case is clearly distinguishable from the case in O.A. No. 1 of 2008 and 127 of 2008.
the petitioner would have to pass the Revenue Qualifying
jfoanz vkacsjdj 7 of 8
4. civil wp 5340-17.doc
Examination if he is seeking promotion. Thus, we do not find
any merit in this petition. Rule is discharged.
[ DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a government servant absorbed from one department to another is exempt from passing a departmental examination merely by virtue of age and a rule applicable to a different class of officers.
Whether the record of rights order requiring the petitioner to pass a revenue qualifying examination upon absorption is reasonable and valid.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
O.A. No. 1 of 2008 & 127 of 2008Distinguished¶56
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Girish Ramaraoji Alone
State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
