Motiram Parasramji Gulhane vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4133 Bom

WP  4148/11                                            1                              Judgment

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 4148/2011

Motiram Parasramji Gulhane,
Aged about 70 years, Occupation - Pensioner,
R/o 10 'Trimurti' Flats, Ganesh Nagar,
Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur.                                                      PETITIONER

                                     .....VERSUS.....

1.    State of Maharashtra,
      Through its Secretary,
      Revenue & Forest Department,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2.    Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
      Maharashtra State, Civil 
      Lines, Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur.                                     RESPONDENTS

                                  None for the petitioner.
           Shri I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.


                                       CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                      A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.                  

DATE : 6 TH JULY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

None appeared for the petitioner in the morning session.

None appears for the petitioner in the afternoon session also though the

matter was adjourned for today at the request of the counsel for the

petitioner by the order dated 04.07.2017.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 21.04.2011 dismissing the

original application filed by the petitioner.

WP 4148/11 2 Judgment

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Range Forest Officer on

09.11.1964 and was provisionally promoted for officiating as an Assistant

Conservator of Forest purely on temporary basis. The order clearly

recited that the promotion was fortuitous and the promotees were liable

to be reverted without any notice whenever direct recruits would be

available. By an order dated 18.08.1993, the petitioner was provisionally

promoted to Maharashtra Forest Service Class-I Senior Grade and was

posted as a Divisional Forest Officer. By a circular dated 28.06.1995, the

State published a provisional seniority list of Assistant Conservators of

Forest for the period from 1980 to 1994. The petitioner was placed at

Serial Number 163 in the seniority list. The seniority list was modified

after considering the objections raised by the employees and even as per

the modified seniority list, the petitioner was placed at Serial Number

163. By the order dated 20.01.1997 that was challenged by the petitioner

before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner was

reverted along with twelve other Divisional Forest Officers. The

petitioner did not join his duties and absented himself after the order of

reversion was passed. An application was made by the petitioner on

14.05.1997 seeking the cancellation of the reversion order and further

stating therein that if the reversion order is not revoked before

30.06.1997, his application - representation should be treated as three

months notice for seeking voluntary retirement with effect from

16.08.1997. The petitioners representation was rejected and he was

WP 4148/11 3 Judgment

directed to join his duties immediately on the post on which he was

reverted. Since the petitioner was not permitted to voluntarily retire from

service, the petitioner challenged the order of his reversion as also the

action on the part of the respondents of not permitting him to voluntarily

retire, in the original application filed before the Tribunal. On an

appreciation of the material on record, the Tribunal dismissed the original

application filed by the petitioner with costs. The said order of the

Tribunal is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.

4. We have perused the writ petition and the grounds raised

therein as also the impugned order. We have heard the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for the respondents. On a reading of the impugned

order, it appears that there is no scope for interference with the impugned

order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was only

provisionally promoted to the post of Divisional Forest Officer considering

the vacancies in the said cadre and the placement of the petitioner in the

seniority list. The Tribunal rightly found on an appreciation of the

material on record that the seniority list was liable to be prepared as per

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the

Supreme Court, merely because the State Government could not fill up

the vacancies that were required to be filled by nomination due to its

inaction, it could not be said that the quota rule of making the

recruitment in the ratio of 1:1 in the case of nomination and promotion

WP 4148/11 4 Judgment

could be breached. On the basis of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that the direct recruits were entitled to the placement in the

seniority in the vacancies reserved for them as per the ratio, the seniority

list was liable to be prepared. On the basis of the said law, the promotees

like the petitioner who were granted promotion in excess of the 1:1 quota

were not entitled to claim seniority from the date of their promotion. The

seniority list was, therefore, modified by considering the dates on which

the vacancies in the respective quota were available. The Tribunal rightly

held that there was no illegality in the preparation of the seniority list

that was published on 07.09.1995. Since the reversion of the petitioner

was effected on the basis of the said seniority list, the Tribunal rightly

held that there was no reason to interfere with the order of reversion,

specially when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Divisional

Forest Officer on provisional basis. The Tribunal further held and rightly

so that the petitioner could not have conditionally applied for the

voluntary retirement. We find that by the application for voluntary

retirement, the petitioner had sought to browbeat the respondents by

asking them to either set aside the order of his reversion or to consider

the very application - representation made by him against the order of

reversion as an application for seeking voluntary retirement. Since the

application for voluntary retirement was not in the proper format and the

request was conditional, the Tribunal held that there was no fault in the

action on the part of the respondents in not considering the said

WP 4148/11 5 Judgment

application - representation as an application for voluntary retirement

and not permitting the petitioner to voluntarily retire from service on the

basis of the same. We find that the order of the Tribunal is just and

proper and calls for no interference.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no

order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

              JUDGE                                        JUDGE
APTE