Bombay High Court
Mrs. Meera G. Khandagale vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 24 July, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
* 1/5 * WP-10521-2015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10521 OF 2015
Mrs. Meera G. Khandagale,
aged 71 years,
lastly working as Assistant Commissioner
of Labour, under the State Labour
Commissioner Govt. of Maharashtra
at Tardeo, Mumbai and
presently residing at R/4, P-5
Sector-6, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai-400 703 ......Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary,
Industry, Energy and Labour Department,
Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2 The Chairman,
Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
Bank of India Building, M.G.Road,
Fort, Mumbai-400 023. .......Respondents
Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy with Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy ,
Advocates for Petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Thadani, APP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : July 24, 2017.
Shivgan
* 2/5 * WP-10521-2015.doc
JUDGMENT : [Per Shri Sandeep K. Shinde, J.]
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is
taken up for final hearing immediately.
2 In 1969, the petitioner was appointed as 'Labour
Investigator'. She was promoted as the 'Government Labour
Officer' in 1976 and thereafter as 'Assistant Commissioner of
Labour' in 1984. She was not selected for the post of 'Deputy
Commissioner of Labour'. Aggrieved by it, she approached the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (In short ' Tribunal ') in
Original Application No.345 of 1993. Her claim was rejected
on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudge
who is better candidate, meaning thereby the petitioner was
not selected by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission
(In short 'MPSC ') on merits. Thereafter, she filed Review
Application No.7 of 1996, which was also rejected on
4.4.1997. Pending review, she filed Writ Petition No.2 of 1996
in this Court to interpret the Recruitment Rules of 1981 and
1985 for the post of 'Deputy Commissioner of Labour' and
'Additional Commissioner of Labour'. The said petition was
Shivgan
* 3/5 * WP-10521-2015.doc
allowed vide judgment and order dated 17.2.2010. Before
adverting to the claim of the petitioner, it may be profitable to
re-produce the observations made by the Division Bench in
Writ Petition No.2 of 1996:
"2 It is to be noted that the Petitioner has
already retired from service as well as the
Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 whose appointments are
challenged by the Petitioner in the present petition
have also retired from service. Therefore, only the
academic interest/question of the appointments and
validity of the notification dated 06th May, 1992 has
to be considered in the present Writ Petition."
The Writ Petition was allowed and the Notification dated
6.5.1992 issued by the MPSC was declared ultra-vires.
Resultantly, the Notification dated 6.5.1992 was quashed and
set aside. That based on the judgment in the aforesaid writ
petition, the petitioner claimed that her right to be appointed
as 'Deputy Commissioner of Labour' has revived and
accordingly, she sought declaration that she was entitled to
the post of 'Deputy Commissioner of Labour and further
consequential benefits including pension from 1.1.2001, which
is her date of retirement.
Shivgan
* 4/5 * WP-10521-2015.doc
3 The Tribunal vide judgment and order dated
24.12.2010 rejected petitioner's claim in Original Application
No.942 of 2010. Aggrieved by the same, this petition is
preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.
4 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned APP for the State.
5 It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not
selected as 'Deputy Commissioner of Labour' having found 'not
suitable' and, therefore, her non selection was on merits. The
first Original Application No.345 of 1993 came to be rejected
on this ground. The Review against the said order also met
with the same fate. Now merely because Recruitment Rules for
the subject post were held ultra-vires and set aside in Writ
Petition No.2 of 1996, though at the instance of the petitioner,
that itself will not accrue rights in petitioner to get her
appointed as 'Deputy Commissioner of Labour'. In our view,
this is clear misinterpretation of the judgment rendered in
Writ Petition No.2 of 1996. In fact, the Division Bench in Writ
Petition No.2 of 1996 in paragraph 2 of its judgment (as
Shivgan
* 5/5 * WP-10521-2015.doc
reproduced here-in-above) has observed that the present
petitioner has already retired from service and, therefore,
only in academic interest, validity of the Notification dated
6.5.1992 was taken up for its legal scrutiny. At the cost of the
repetition, it may be stated that the petitioner was not
eliminated from the process of selection for the post of 'Deputy
Commissioner of Labour' in terms of prevailing Notification
dated 6.5.1992 but she was not selected having not found
suitable for the said post. That for this reason, merely because
the Notification issued by the MPSC on 6.5.1992 was held
ultra-vires that itself will not revive rights of the petitioner to
be selected for the post of 'Deputy Commissioner of Labour'.
6 That for the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in
the matter and accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
7 Rule is discharged.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)
Shivgan
