Bombay High Court
Shri Nitin S/O Wasudeo Angaitkar ... vs Maharashtra Electricity ... on 7 June, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
WP.884.12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 884 OF 2012
1] Deleted,
2] Abhay Narayanrao Chafale,
Aged 45 years, Occ-Service,
resident of Plot No.103, Hanuman
Nagar, Nagpur-440009.
3] Shri Kishor s/o Chandrakant Holey,
Aged about 43 years, Occ-Service,
R/o c/o N.M.Karekar, MEL Colony,
Chhatrapati Nagar, Tukum,
Chandrapur.
4] Harishchandra s/o Sheshrao Balpande,
Aged about 38 Yrs., Occ-Service,
R/o Qtr No. d/3, MSEB Colony, Mul
Road, Chandrapur.
5] Prakash Trimbak Deshpande,
Aged 53 years, Occupation-Service,
R/o Plot No. 245, Ram Nagar,
Nagpur-440 010.
6] Vikas Murlidhar Dalal, Aged 51 years,
Occupation- Service, R/o Chandravati
Nagar, near Sai Nagar, Badnera Road,
Amravati 444607.
7] Mrs. Kavita Abhay Chafale, aged 43 years,
Occ-Service, resident of Plot No. 103,
Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur 440 009.
8] Rajendra s/o Shriniwas Vekhande,
Aged about 45 Years, Occu-Service,
R/o Plot No. 4A, RPTS Road, Surendra
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:46:46 :::
WP.884.12
2
Nagar, Nagpur-15.
9] Ashish s/o Rajnikant Mahajan,
Aged about 39 yrs., Occ.-Service,
R/o Saraswati Nagar, Circullar Road,
Buldhana.
10] Chetan s/o Ramesh Dhawle,
Aged about 36 years, Occ-Service,
R/o Qtr. No. C-1, 400 KV Colony,
Gorkshan Road, Akola.
11] Ajay s/o Prabhakar Hanwante,
Aged about 36 Yrs., Occu-Service,
R/o C/o A.M. Oak, Gorkashan Road, SBI
Colony, Sahakarnagar, Akola.
12] Vishal s/o Samadhan Ingale,
Aged about 33 Yrs., Occ-Service,
R/o Qtr. No. B-3, 400 KV Colony,
Gorkshan Road, Akola.
13] Mrs. Varsha Vivek Borkar,
Aged 42 years, Occupation-Service,
R/o A1/4, Mahesh Paradise, D.P. Road,
Aund, Pune.
14] Hanumant s/o Digambarrao
Dongargaokar, aged 39 years,
Occupation-Service, R/o 132 KV MSEB
sub-station Quarters, Kothrud, near
Paschima Nagari, Karve Nagar,
Kothrud, Pune.
15] Prakash s/o Shriram Kursunge,
Aged 37 years, Occupation-Service,
Resident of Omkar Apartments,
Wedgaon Sheri, Pune 411 014.
16] Girish s/o Shashikant Pantoji,
Aged 39 Years, Occupation-Service,
Resident of A2 Building, A Wing, Siddhi
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:46:46 :::
WP.884.12
3
Vinayak Ginger Pimple Saudagar,
Aundh Camp, Pune-411 027.
17] Ravindra s/o Manik Gudhate,
Aged 41 years, Occupation-Service,
Resident of flat No. 508, Samruddhi
Kumbare Gaarden, Kothrud,
Pune-411 038.
18] Sunil s/o Subhash Shiknis,
Aged Major, Occupation-Service,
R/o C-697, Ramakant Kartik
Nagar, behind Old Akkalkot
Naka, Solapur 413 006.
19] Santosh s/o Dnyaneshwar Chaure,
Aged 36 years, Occupation-Service,
Resident of Montvert Pristine Office,
Aundh road, Pune-411 020.
20] Atul s/o Chandrakant Manurkar,
Aged 46 years, Occu-Service,
R/o Flat No. Pancharatna
Apartment, Kondage Park,
Hingare Khurd, Sinhgad
Road, Pune 411 051.
21] Prakash s/o Vasant Kingaonkar,
Aged about 52 Yrs., Occ-Service,
R/o 6, Survana Apartments,
Kunkuwadi,Vile Parle (East),
Mumbai.
22] Mrs. Beena D. Khot, Aged about-
Major, Occ-Service, R/o Shivneri
Apartments, Nath Pai Nagar,
Nr. Vidhya Bhavan School, Ghat Koper
(East), Mumbai-77.
23] S.G. Purkar, Aged about 52 Years,
Occu-Service, R/o Unique Towers,
Badnera Road, Opp. Band Petrol Pump,
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:46:46 :::
WP.884.12
4
Amravati.
24] Shri Sunil s/o Wamanrao Sherekar,
Aged 45 years, Occupation-Service,
Resident of near Abhinav, SBI Colony,
Camp-Amravati.
25] Sunil Vasantrao Sardey, aged Major,
Occupation-Service, resident of 20,
Baxi Layout, Deonagar, Nagpur-440 015.
26] Narendra s/o Nilkanthrao Wankhede,
Aged 47 years, Occupation-Service,
resident of Plot No. 199, Baji Prabhu
Nagar, Nagpur. .... PETITIONERS
// VERSUS //
1] Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
Company Limited, 'Prakash Ganga', Plot
No.C-19, E Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051
through its Managing Director.
2] The Chief General Manager (Human Resource),
M.S. Electricity Transmission Company Limited,
'Prakash Ganga', Plot No. C-19, E Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400 051.
3] Holiram Nandlal Sangode, Aged 49 years,
Occ-Service, R/o F-11, Kalinga Apartment,
Shivaji Complex, Mankapur,
Nagpur-440030.
4] Rahul Vithalrao Dahikar, Aged 51 years,
Occ- Service, R/o 49, Gajanan Sagar,
Khobragade Layout, Post Bhagwan Nagar,
Near Omkar Nagar Water Tank,
Nagpur-27.
5] Dinesh Bapurao Tamgadge, Aged 51 years,
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:46:46 :::
WP.884.12
5
Occu-Service, R/o Lokmudra Apartment,
Civil Lines, Bhandara, District-Bhandara.
6] Sidharth Rajaram Dube, Aged 51 years,
Occu-Service, R/o B-303, Ghelot
Residency New Panvel, District Raigarh.
7] Dattatraya Shankar Salunke,
Aged 43 years, Occu-Service,
R/o Flat No.2, Prashant Heights,
Femous Chowk, Navi Sanghavi,
Pune-27.
8] Tulshiram Mariba Gosikar,
Aged 53 years, Occ-Service,
Type-II, 2/3, MSEB Colony,
Borivali National Park, Mumbai.
9] Sharad Janardhan Lokhande,
Aged 50 years, Occ: Service,
R/o 26, Sidhinagar, H-Type
Building, Vidhyasagar Society,
Bilvewadi, Pune.
10] Satish Gangaram Gaikar,
Aged 46 years, Occ:Service,
R/o Ganga Hemlet Housing
Society, Building No.A-5,
Plate No.301, Vimannagar,
Pune-14.
11] Arun Narayan Rode, Aged 1 year,
Occu: Service, R/o near LIC
Office, Ambejogai, District-Bid.
12] Prabhakar s/o Vithal Kamble,
Aged 52 years, Occ:Service,
R/o A-5, Sudama-Kung, RH-27,
MIDC Residency Zone, Dombivali
(East), District-Thane. .... RESPONDENTS
WP.884.12
Mr. P.D. Meghe, Advocate for petitioners.
Ms. Sapkal, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 to 12.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 7, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.).
1] Effort of Mr. P.D. Meghe, learned Advocate for petitioners,
is to demonstrate that as ad-hoc promotions were given during the
pendency of Writ Petition No. 10147/09, after that Writ Petition was
finally allowed by the High Court, ad-hoc promotees could not have
been shown as senior to petitioners either in the cadre of Executive
Engineers or Deputy Executive Engineers. To substantiate this
contention, he has invited our attention to the gesture of his employer.
He points out that his employer sought leave of High Court and as per
that leave, ad-hoc promotions have been effected. He, therefore,
contends that as the case of petitioners has been accepted finally by
this Court, the ad-hoc promotees must be placed before petitioners in
seniority list.
2] The contention is being opposed by respondents.
WP.884.12
3] With the assistance of respective Counsel, we have
perused records.
4] Total number of vacancies available in 2009 when the
selection process was initiated is not apparent. 25% of the cadre
strength of either the Executive Engineers or Deputy Executive
Engineers was to be filled in through direct recruitment after written
test. Petitioners before this Court appeared in that written test. The
selection process was cancelled mid-way and hence some of them
approached this Court in the above mentioned Writ Petition. Leave to
employer to fill in vacancies in the cadre of Executive Engineer or
Deputy Executive Engineer on ad-hoc basis was given during the
pendency of that Writ Petition.
5] After petitioners succeeded, they have been recruited
either as Executive Engineer or Deputy Executive Engineer. It is not
their case that number of vacancies has been brought down from
103. All the 103 vacancies were advertised and have been filled in.
None of the promotees, therefore, have been accommodated against
vacancies which were advertised and are filled in by petitioners.
Therefore, questions like use of quota-rota rule and the disputes
WP.884.12
which arise therefrom fall for determination. Basic facts like total
cadre strength, posts available for departmental promotees and
whether the ad-hoc promotees have been absorbed against the
departmental quota cannot be answered in this matter effectively as
these details are lacking and the departmental promotees are not
parties before this Court. When ad-hoc promotions were effected, if
there were any vacancies in promotional quota, it may be a decisive
factor.
6] However, as employer sought leave of this Court, we are
inclined to grant petitioners an opportunity to make proper
representation to their employer. If a proper and comprehensive
representation is made within three weeks from today, the employer
shall look into it and after extending opportunity of hearing to all
concerned, pass suitable orders within next ten weeks.
7] With these directions and keeping all rival contentions
open, we dispose of the Writ Petition. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE.
J.
