This petition regarding promotion and seniority was dismissed for inordinate delay of 19 years. The court held that no sufficient cause existed for the delay, and the Tribunal's dismissal was correct.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded.
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.
1 953-wp 11100-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11100 OF 2021
Shaikh Mohammad Aminuddin
Shaikh Mohammad Bashiruddin
.. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others
.. Respondents
Mr. Vishwas B. Wagh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondents/State.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED : 05th October, 2021.
PER COURT:-
.Mr. Wagh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Tribunal has not considered the sufficient cause put forth by the
petitioner and has dismissed the Original Application on the ground of
delay. The learned counsel submits that delay has to be liberally
construed. The petitioner was never supplied with necessary
information. The petitioner was not going to gain by delay. There is no
deliberate delay. The seniority list was not published. Opportunity was
not given to raise the objection. The petitioner had no knowledge of
Mr. B. J. More being promoted. For all these grounds, delay has been
caused.
1 of 3
2 953-wp 11100-2021.odt
2. The learned A.G.P. supports the order of the Tribunal.
3. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties.
4.The Tribunal has observed that the petitioner claimed that he
was entitled for promotion on the post of Technical Officer and had
completed Hapur training during the period from 10.10.1983 to
09.12.1983. The petitioner had never approached respondents for
inserting his name in the list of eligible candidates for appointment on
the post of Technical Officer (Supply). Mr. B. J. More had completed
the said training during the period from 25.05.1983 to 22.07.1983. He
was senior to the petitioner and was promoted to the post of Technical
Officer (Supply) in the year 1997. The petitioner did not challenge the
same for 19 years. It is further observed by the Tribunal that the
seniority list of eligible candidates for promotion on the post of
Technical Officer (Supply) has been published in the year 2002, but the
petitioner did not raise objection to the seniority list. The petitioner has
also admitted that he learnt about the promotion given to Mr. More at
the time of his retirement i.e. in the year 2004. The petitioner retired
on 31.05.2004. Till the year 2012, the petitioner did not raise any
grievance and representation for the first time was filed in the year
2012 and Original Application is filed in the year 2017.
2 of 3
3 953-wp 11100-2021.odt
5. No doubt, the aspect of delay has to be liberally construed, but it cannot be construed in a manner that the concept of sufficient cause would be rendered nugatory. It is a case of inordinate delay of 19 years. No sufficient cause exists. The Tribunal has rightly considered the same.
6. Writ petition, as such is dismissed. No costs.
( R. N. LADDHA ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGEP.S.B.
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to promotion after an inordinate delay of 19 years.
Whether the delay in filing the original application and writ petition amounts to bar for sufficient cause.
Shaikh Mohammad Aminuddin and Shaikh Mohammad Bashiruddin
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. GANGAPURWALA
R. N. LADDHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court