Mr. Dasharath Lakhan Sonawane vs The Principal Secretary, General ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1471 Bom

                                      1                     WP.1994/2017(3)

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.]

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.G.P

for the Respondents.

2. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith and the

matter is heard finally.

3. An advertisement was issued by the Maharashtra Public

2 WP.1994/2017(3)

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 31 st

October, 1994. He joined the said post on 2nd November, 1994.

4. The case of the Petitioner is that the candidate higher in merit

list are eligible to be posted in Mantralaya and accordingly he

should have been appointed in Mantralaya and not in the

department of Commissioner Labour. Hence, the Petitioner

preferred an O.A. No. 743 of 2015 before the Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal at Mumbai. In the said O.A. it was

contended that great injustice has been caused to the Petitioner

because if he was posted to Mantralaya he would have retired as

Joint Secretary whereas in post relating to Greater Mumbai a Clerk

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

4 WP.1994/2017(3)

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.

6. According to the Petitioner the candidates higher in the merit

list are eligible to be posted in Mantralaya, hence, he was eligible to

be posted in Mantralaya based on his merit in the selection list.

However, it is an admitted fact that the decision to allot posts to

candidates higher in merit list in Mantralaya was taken only in

2008 and in 1993 no such policy existed. Hence, the Petitioner

cannot claim benefit of a policy which was not in existence at the

time of his appointment.

7. As stated earlier in the year 1993 there was no policy to allot

candidates higher in the merit list to Mantralaya. More over if the

Petitioner had any grievance he should have made a representation

immediately after he was posted in the office of Commissioner

Labour in the year 1994. The Tribunal has rightly held that after 23

years it is not possible to consider his request. More over it is

5 WP.1994/2017(3)

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 2 nd 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 15 th 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.

9. The Tribunal has rightly held that the explanation of the

Petitioner that he realized malafide action on the part of the

Respondent when G.R. Dated 31st May, 2012 was published on the

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 1 st 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.

10. The Petitioner after changing his job probably realized that he

would get better promotional opportunities in Mantralaya and he

has tried to raise an issue which is already stale. The Tribunal has

rightly held that the Petitioner is trying to revive a dead issue and

that he has no locus standi to challenge the seniority list of Junior

Clerk. The said order does not call for any interference.

11. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged.

        (M.S. KARNIK, J.)                     (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)