Shri. Pratap Gopalrao Solanki vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 5389 Bom

                                 * 1/3 *     WP-6682-2015.doc

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  WRIT PETITION NO.6682 OF 2015

Shri Pratap Gopalrao Solanki
Aged 40 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. B/3, Walmiki CHS Ltd.,
Gorpadi Gaon,
Pune-411001                                  ......Petitioner

         Versus

1 State of Maharashtra
[Copy to be served on the Govt.
Pleader, Writ Cell, High Court,
Mumbai ]

2 The Commissioner,
Women and Child
Development,
Commissionerate, 28 Ranicha
Baugh, Pune 411001.                          .......Respondents


Mr. Yogesh S. Palve, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Thadani , AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.


                          CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &
                                  SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : August 1, 2017.

JUDGMENT : [Per Shri Sandeep K. Shinde, J.]

Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (In short 'MAT ') dated

17.6.2015 passed in Original Application No.463 of 2015, the

Shivgan

* 2/3 * WP-6682-2015.doc

petitioner has preferred this petition.

2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned AGP for the State.

3 The petitioner was appointed in the office of the

Respondent No.2 on 16.3.1995 as a 'Junior Clerk' on the

compassionate ground. He was appointed by the Divisional

Social Welfare Officer, Pune, Pune Division, Pune in place of his

mother. On 26.2.2014, the petitioner was promoted on ad-hoc

basis as 'Senior Clerk' for one year. The order of promotion,

however, reserves right to cancel the said order at any point of

time since it was ad-hoc promotion for limited period. It

appears that on 29.5.2015, the petitioner was reverted from

'Senior Clerk' to his original post on the following grounds:

^^2½ ^^2½ dkLVª dkLVªkbZ kbZc deZpkjh egkla?k egkjk"Vª egkjk"Vª jkT;] ukxiwj ;kauh fnukad [email protected]@2014] [email protected]@2015 o [email protected]@2015 P;k vtkZuqlkj rdzkj vtZ nk[ky dsyk gksrk- R;kuqlkj vk;qDrky;kP;k vf/kuLr dfu"B fyihd laoxkZrhy [kkR;karxZr lsok izos'kksRrj ifj{kk mRrh.kZ >kysY;[email protected]= deZpkjh miyC/k vlrkauk R;kauk Mkoywu inksUurhps fud"k iq.kZ djhr ulysY;k deZpkÚ kÚ;kauk ofj"B fyihd inkoj inksUurh fnY;kps fnlwu vkys- rFkkfi v'kh inksZUurh rnFkZ rRokoj rkRiqjR;k Lo#ikr ,d o"kkZP;k dkyko/khdfjrk vlyh rjh ik= vl.kkÚ vl.kkÚ;k deZpkÚ kÚ;kaoj gk vU;k; >kysyk vkgs- R;keqGs lnjph inksUurh jn~n d#u lacaf/kr deZpk Ú;kaP;k eqG inkoj inLFkkiuk ns.;klaca/kh fuosnu fnys gksrs-**

Shivgan

* 3/3 * WP-6682-2015.doc

4 The said order of reversion was confirmed by the

MAT, inter-alia holding that duly qualified candidates, though

available, were not considered or were by-passed, while

granting ad-hoc promotion to the petitioner cannot be faulted

with. That even otherwise, it appears contents of paragraph 2

of the impugned order of reversion was not denied. That even

otherwise, his promotion to the post of 'Senior Clerk' was on

ad-hoc basis for a period of one year and as such, we find no

merit in the present petition. The petition is, accordingly,

dismissed.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)

Shivgan