Bombay High Court
Yograj S/O Deodasji Meshram And 2 ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 7 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp5779.13.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5779/2013
PETITIONERS : 1. Yograj s/o Deodasji Meshram
Aged 29 years, Occu - Nil, R/o C/o
Mr. Manohar Dhande, Opposite Mayur
Pustkalaya, New Shukrawari, Nagpur.
2. Ashwaghosh Dudhram Ramteke
Aged 36 years, Occu - Nil, R/o Buddha
Vihar, Samrat Ashok Nagar, 8th Mile,
Amravati Road, Dawalameghi, Nagpur.
3. Subhash Istauji Bawankar
Aged 34 years, Occu - Nil,
R/o Near Narayan Math, Pardi,
Bhandara Road, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary Department of
Agriculture Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Divisional Joint Director of
Agriculture, New Administrative
Building No.2, Behind Divisional
Commissioner Office, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. The Director of Agriculture
Government of Maharashtra, Sugar Complex,
Shivaji Nagar, Pune - 5.
4. The District Superintendent,
Agriculture Officer, Opposite
Chandrapur City Traffic Office,
Civil Lines, Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:46:51 :::
wp5779.13.odt
2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for petitioners
Mrs. Mrunal Naik, AGP for respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 07.06.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 8.7.2011 partly allowing the
original application filed by the petitioners and directing the respondent
nos.1 and 2 - State of Maharashtra and others to hold a fresh enquiry in
the complaints pertaining to irregularities/malpractices committed in the
conduct of selection process for appointment to the posts of Ropmala
Madatnis. By the impugned order, the Tribunal had directed that the
appointment orders issued to the present petitioners would be subject to
the final decision of the Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture in the
fresh enquiry.
The petitioners had applied for the post of Ropmala
Madatnis (Gardner) in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the
respondent no.4 - District Superintendent Agriculture Officer,
Chandrapur on 8.7.2008. The petitioners appeared at the written
examination and after they were declared to be successful, they were
called for the interview. The petitioners appeared at the interview and
wp5779.13.odt
were selected for the post of Ropmala Madatnis. The petitioners attended
the duties as Ropmala Madatnis for some time. It is the case of the
petitioners that to their surprise the Divisional Joint Director of
Agriculture stayed the appointments of the petitioners in view of the
complaints pertaining to the malpractices allegedly committed while
conducting the selection process. Being aggrieved by the action on the
part of the Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture staying the
appointments of the petitioners the petitioners approached the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. During the pendency of the
proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, an enquiry
was conducted in the complaints made by some third parties pertaining to
the selection and appointments and a report was prepared and produced
before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal did not find favour with the report and was
pleased to set aside the same. The Tribunal permitted the respondents to
hold a fresh enquiry in the complaints pertaining to the selection. For the
first time, while conducting the second enquiry, a new ground was
canvassed before the Enquiry Officer in regard to the absence of approval
from the Backward Class Cell before advertising the posts of Ropmala
Madatnis. The Enquiry Officer however considered the said objection that
was raised for the first time after a long lapse of time to hold that the
wp5779.13.odt
appointments were bad in law as the approval from the Backward Class
Cell was not secured before advertising the posts. The Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, on the perusal of the second enquiry report held
that the appointments were irregular. The Tribunal however held that the
Enquiry Officer was not precluded from independently taking a stock of
the entire selection process and considering the allegations pertaining to
the irregularities in the process. The Tribunal held that the Enquiry
Officer could have looked into certain issues pertaining to the
irregularities and malpractices though they were not the part of the
previous enquiry. The Tribunal held that there was no fault in the action
on the part of the respondents in cancelling the entire recruitment
process, so that a fresh recruitment process could be conducted. The order
of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is challenged by the
petitioners in the instant petition.
Shri Meghe, the learned Counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the appointments of the petitioners could not have been
stayed by the Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture after the petitioners
were appointed and before it was found after the enquiry that the
malpractices alleged by the complainants were proved. It is submitted
that though there was no genuine reason for staying the appointments of
the petitioners, the appointments were stayed. It is submitted that as per
wp5779.13.odt
the second enquiry report, the malpractices were not proved, however,
the selection process was cancelled only because there was no approval
from the Backward Class Cell before filling the posts of Ropmala Madatnis
in Chandrapur District. It is submitted that there was no approval from
the Backward Class Cell to fill up the posts of Ropmala Madatnis in
Nagpur and Gadchiroli Districts but the appointments of Ropmala
Madatnis in those Districts were neither stayed nor was the selection
process cancelled. It is submitted that the Ropmala Madatnis appointed in
pursuance of the selection process in Nagpur and Chandrapur Districts
continue to work as Ropmala Madatnis, till date.
Mrs. Naik, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents has supported the order of the Tribunal. It
is submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal as the
selection process was cancelled in the absence of approval from the
Backward Class Cell before filling up the posts in Chandrapur District. It is
submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held that though other
irregularities were not found in the selection process, the Enquiry Officer
was empowered to consider whether there was any technical irregularity
like the one pertaining to the absence of approval from the Backward
Class Cell before advertising the posts. It is submitted that the Tribunal
has considered the matter in the right perspective to hold that there was
wp5779.13.odt
no fault in the action on the part of the respondents in cancelling the
selection process, so that a fresh selection process for appointment of the
Ropmala Madatnis in Chandrapur District could be initiated. The learned
Assistant Government Pleader sought for the dismissal of the writ
petition.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Tribunal ought to have
granted the relief in favour of the petitioners who were not at fault and
there were no malpractices in the conduct of the selection process. Some
complaints were made against the conduct of the selection process and
the appointments made thereafter by third parties and they were related
to the alleged malpractices committed during the conduct of the selection
process. The first enquiry report prepared during the pendency of the
proceedings before the Tribunal was discarded by the Tribunal and a
second enquiry was conducted. In the second enquiry, the Enquiry Officer
found that malpractices were not committed during the conduct of the
selection process. However, the Enquiry Officer considered and decided
an objection which was raised by the complainants after several months
from the appointment of the petitioners that the Backward Class Cell had
not granted approval before the posts were advertised. It is submitted on
behalf of the petitioners that no approval from the Backward Class Cell
wp5779.13.odt
was secured before the appointments were made in Nagpur and
Gadchiroli Districts. Though the approval was not secured before the
appointments of Ropmala Madatnis in the two aforesaid Districts were
made, the appointments made in those Districts were not disturbed while
disturbing the appointments made in Chandrapur District, with which we
are concerned. The petitioners were appointed in September, 2008 and
were actually performing their duties as Ropmala Madatnis, when the
order of their appointments was stayed merely because there were some
complaints. In the circumstances of the case, the appointments could not
have been stayed after the petitioners had started functioning, specially
when there was no proof of the malpractices conducted during the
selection process. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioners
were working as Ropmala Madatnis and continue to work till date. In the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have set aside the order
of cancellation of the selection process, as far as the petitioners are
concerned, specially when the petitioners were appointed in the year
2008 and the appointments of the Ropmala Madatnis in Nagpur and
Gadchiroli Districts were not stayed or disturbed though the approval of
the Backward Class Cell was not secured before the selection process was
commenced in these Districts. This is a fit case for grant of relief in favour
of the petitioners. The Tribunal ought to have set aside the order of
wp5779.13.odt
cancellation of selection process, insofar as the appointments of the
petitioners are concerned. Also, when the appointments of the petitioners
were stayed only on the basis of allegations of malpractices committed
during the selection process, the appointments could not have been
cancelled after several years solely on the technical ground that there was
no approval from the Backward Class Cell.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The order of the
respondents, cancelling the selection process is also quashed and set
aside, so far as the petitioners are concerned. Though the petitioners
would be entitled to continuity of service from the date of their initial
appointments, the petitioners would not be entitled to the arrears of
salary or any other monetary benefits flowing from the order of continuity
of service for the period during which they were out of service.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
