Bombay High Court
Mahesh Sampatrao Rakh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 29 June, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
WP/1260/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1260 OF 2011
Mahesh Sampatrao Rakh,
Age - 39 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. N-4-C-54, CIDCO,
Aurangabad, at present
working at M.P.C.B.,
Chandrapur. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Environment and
Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Chairman,
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board,
Having office at "Kalpataru",
3rd and 4th Floor, Opp. Cine Planet,
Sayan - Matunga Scheme Road,
Sayan (E), Mumbai.
3. H Maharashtra Pollution Control Board,
Having office at "Kalpataru",
3rd and 4th Floor, Opp. Cine Planet,
Sayan - Matunga Scheme Road,
Sayan (E), Mumbai.
Through its Member Secretary.
4. Sandeep S/o Lahu Tope,
Age - 30 years, Occu. Service,
Regional Office,
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board,
"Paryawaran Bhavan", A-4/1,
Chikalthana, M.I.D.C.,
Near Seth Nandlal Dhoot Hospital,
Aurangabad-431 210.
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 01:03:34 :::
WP/1260/2011
2
5. Anant S/o Nana Harshavardhan (Kamble),
Age - 45 years, Occu. Service,
Sub Regional Officer,
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board,
Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Mandai,
Municipal Corporation Building,
4th Floor, Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Road,
Mumbai. ... Respondents
...
Mr. S.G.Jadhavar, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. V.S.Badakh, AGP for Respondent No.1
Mr. P.P.More, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3
Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.4
Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No.5
...
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 15th June, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 29th June, 2017
JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil K. Kotwal, J.) :-
1. Petitioner is a citizen of India, who has filed this petition
for direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to change cadre of petitioner
from scientific cadre to technical cadre with effect from 05.05.2000
and with consequential relief to appoint the petitioner as 'Sub-
Regional Officer' with effect from 16.10.2007. Petitioner has also
claimed the reversion of respondent Nos.4 and 5 from their respective
posts of Field Officer and Sub Regional Officer. Respondent No.3, is
the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (in brief "Board").
Respondent No.2 is Chairman of the Board. Petitioner and
WP/1260/2011
respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the employees of the Board.
2. Undisputed facts in between the parties are that, on
09.01.1999, petitioner was appointed as 'Junior Scientific Assistant' in
the Board in scientific branch. On 15.06.2005 petitioner was
promoted as 'Junior Scientific Officer'. It is not disputed that, initially,
respondent No.4 was appointed as 'Junior Scientific Assistant' on
29.05.2004 and he was promoted on 15.06.2005 to the post of 'Junior
Scientific Officer'. Respondent No.5 was appointed on the post of
'Junior Scientific Officer'.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, on 05.05.2000,
20.01.2004, 10.03.2005 and 16.10.2010, he requested respondent
No.3/Board to change his cadre and appoint him as 'Field Officer'.
However, his request was turned down by respondent Nos.1 to 3. On
the other hand, on 26.12.2005, respondent No.4 was given charge of
'Field Officer' and on 10.02.2006, respondent No.5 was given charge
of 'Regional Officer', in technical cadre. Being aggrieved with this
order passed by respondent No.3/Board, petitioner filed Writ Petition
No.2640 of 2008 and sought relief from this Court to appoint him in
technical branch as a 'Field Officer'. However, that Writ Petition was
disposed off for a reason that, person from scientific branch cannot be
WP/1260/2011
appointed to technical branch. So also as appointment of respondent
Nos.4 and 5 was on ad-hoc basis, the relief claimed by the petitioner
against respondent Nos.4 and 5 was also rejected. Even, thereafter
petitioner has filed this Writ Petition claiming almost same reliefs.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, an act
of respondent Nos.1 to 3 regarding regularizing the ad-hoc
appointment of respondent Nos.4 and 5 as 'Field Officer' and
'Regional Officer' respectively is bad in law, as it was made without
following due procedure of regulations applicable to the Board. He
submits that, no advertisement was published and process for
appointment by nomination was not followed by respondent No.3, as
prescribed under the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board Employees
Recruitment Regulations, 1996 (hereinafter referred as "Recruitment
Regulations"). Learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn our
attention to the cases -
(a) "State of U.P. and others Vs. Rekha Rani", reported in
[AIR 2011 Supreme Court, 1893],
(b) "Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P.
Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava", reported in, [AIR 1992
Supreme Court, 2070],
(c) "State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and
others", reported in [AIR 1992 Supreme Court 2130].
WP/1260/2011
The ratio of these authorities is that, ad-hoc appointment
for short period does not confer right to regularize the service.
However, these authorities are of no help for the reason that
respondent Nos.4 and 5 do not claim right of regularization on the
basis of their ad-hoc appointment.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents opposed this
petition, on the first ground that, after decision of Writ Petition
No.2640/2008, the petitioner cannot claim change of cadre or
appointment on the post of 'Field Officer' in technical cadre, when
Recruitment Regulations do not permit the same. Learned counsels
for the respondents pointed out that, on 21.01.2009 in response to
advertisement published by the Board, petitioner applied for the post
of 'Field Officer', but he could not qualify for the post of 'Field
Officer'. Therefore, petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the
appointment of respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the post of 'Field Officer'
and 'Regional Officer' respectively.
6. It is not disputed that, as per Recruitment Regulations, on
the establishment of Board, there are different branches such as,
Technical, Scientific, Legal, Accounts and Administration
respectively. These branches are having different channels of
WP/1260/2011
promotions and these are not inter mixing. For clarity, the channel of
promotions in technical and scientific branches of the Board is given
as under :
Sr. Technical Branch Scientific Branch
No.
1 Field Inspector Laboratory Assistant with
(Pay scale : 4500-125-7000) B.Sc. Qualification
(Pay scale 3200-85-4900)
2 Field Officer Junior Scientific Assistant
(Pay scale : 5500-175-9000) (Pay scale 5000-150-8000)
3 Deputy Engineer / Sub- Junior Scientific Officer
Regional Officer (Pay scale : 6500-200-10500)
(Pay scale 8000-275-13500)
4 Regional Officer Scientific Officer
(Pay scale : 10000-325-15200) (Pay scale : 7450-225-11500)
5 Water Pollution Abatement Senior Scientific Officer
Engineer / Air Pollution (Pay scale : 10000-325-15200)
Abatement Engineer
(Pay scale : 12000-375-16500)
6 Principal Scientific Officer
(Pay scale : 12000-375-16500)
7. Thus, after going through the Recruitment Regulations of
the Board, it becomes absolutely clear that, employee of the Board
from scientific channel cannot be transferred to technical channel.
Therefore, petitioner, who is working in scientific cadre as 'Junior
Scientific Officer' cannot be transferred in technical cadre as 'Field
WP/1260/2011
Officer' or cannot be promoted as 'Regional Officer'. On this sole
ground, the main prayer of the petitioner deserves to be rejected.
8. Otherwise also, after going through the judgment passed
by this Court in Writ Petition No.2640 of 2008, dated 29.07.2008, it
reveals that, this Court has already negated the claim of the petitioner
to change his cadre from scientific to technical branch. Review
application No.157 of 2008 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed
on 15.01.2010. Against that order, no remedy has been availed by the
petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.2640 of 2008 has reached to finality and petitioner cannot
repeatedly claim the same relief from this Court. On this ground, the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Otherwise also, as pointed out by the respondents when
petitioner applied for the post of 'Field Officer' in response to the
advertisement published by the respondents on 21.01.2009 and when
the petitioner failed to qualify for appointment on the post of 'Field
Officer' by nomination, the petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge
the appointment of respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the post of 'Field
Officer' and 'Regional Officer' in technical cadre respectively.
Respondent No.2 and 3 have clarified in their reply that, the
appointment of the respondent No.4 to the post of Field Officer was
WP/1260/2011
made on ad-hoc basis initially in order to cope up with the increased
work load and subsequently taking into consideration his long
standing ad-hoc experience to the post of FO, the appointment
authority has decided to regularize his services on the post of Field
Officer. So as to the appointment of respondent No.5 has been made
in order to fill up the vacancies of handicapped persons in compliance
of order passed in PIL 70/2002 and PIL 129/2003. After approval
from Environment Department Government of Maharashtra, he was
given a regular appointment to the post of Sub Regional Officer in the
handicapped category, taking into consideration his additional
qualification i.e. Ph.D. in Environment and his ad-hoc experience to
the post of Sub Regional Officer. Therefore, the prayer of the
petitioner regarding reversion of respondent Nos.4 and 5 needs to be
rejected. It follows that, this petition, being devoid of merits,
deserves to be rejected. Hence, following order.
ORDER
1. Petition is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Rule discharged.
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
...
vmk
