Bombay High Court
Mahadeo S/O Pundalik Ramteke vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary ... on 24 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
2710WP6310.05-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6310 OF 2005
PETITIONER :- Mahadeo s/o Pundalik Ramteke, Age : about
54 years, Occ : Service, R/o 146, Kabir
Nagar, Nari Layout, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary,
Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-
ig 2.
400 032.
Dy. Director of Technical Education Nagpur
Region, Nagpur.
C/o. Govt.Polytechnic Campus, Sadar,
Nagpur.
3. Shri R.W.Bansod, Presently working as Time
Keeper, Government Polytechnic, Sadar,
Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the petitioner.
Mr. A.R.Chutake, Asstt. Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
None for the respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 27.10.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 12/09/2005 dismissing
the original application filed by the petitioner.
2710WP6310.05-Judgment 2/3
The petitioner was an ex-serviceman and he had joined
the duties in the Government Polytechnic College as a chowkidar.
According to the petitioner, though the petitioner was entitled to
promotion to the post of time keeper as he was placed at Sr.No.7 in the
seniority list and the respondent No.3 was placed at Sr.No.8, the
respondents wrongfully promoted the respondent No.3 on the post of
time keeper. The petitioner, therefore, approached the tribunal
challenging the order of promotion of the respondent No.3. The
petitioner had also sought a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to
promote him on the post of time keeper. The tribunal, on an
appreciation of the material on record dismissed the original application
filed by the petitioner.
On hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and on a perusal of the impugned order, it
appears that there is no scope for interference with the impugned order,
in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Though the petitioner was placed at
Sr.No.7 in the seniority list and the respondent No.3 was placed at
Sr.No.8, the service record of the respondent No.3 was clean and
unblemished. The departmental promotion committee did not find the
petitioner to be fit for promotion and found that the respondent No.3
was fit for promotion. While holding so, the departmental promotion
committee considered the service records of the petitioner and the
respondent No.3. The service records of the petitioner and the
respondent No.3 were also called by the tribunal and the tribunal found
2710WP6310.05-Judgment 3/3
that the departmental promotion committee had rightly declined to
grant promotion to the petitioner. Though it was the case of the
petitioner that the confidential reports were not communicated to him,
the tribunal did not agree with the said submission. The tribunal found
that the confidential remarks were such that the petitioner could not
have been promoted. It was also found that in the earlier year also, the
petitioner was fined for being negligent in his duty and it was held that
he was not fit for promotion at that time also. The findings recorded by
the tribunal are based on a proper appreciation of the material on
record and they do not call for interference.
Hence, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to
costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
