Bombay High Court
Shri Umesh Shrikant Dabhade vs The Manager, Government Printing ... on 3 May, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.6255.13
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 6255/2013
Shri Umesh Shrikant Dabhade
Aged 48, R/o Shirish Apartment
Plot No.10, Shastri Layout,
Jaytala Road,
Subhash Nagar, Nagpur 440 022. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Manager
Government Printing Press and Book Depot
Near Central Telegraph Office
Civil Lines, Nagpur 44 0 0012.
2) The Director
Directorate of Printing and Stationery
21-A Netaji Subhash Road,
Mumbai-400 004.
3) State of Maharashtra
Department of Industry, Energy & Labour
Through its Secretary
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
4) Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
1st floor Administrative Building
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
None for the petitioner
Miss N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
...........................................................................................................................
wp.6255.13
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS
. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 3 May, 2017
rd
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 26.08.2013, dismissing the
Original Application filed by the petitioner.
The respondent -Manager, Government Printing Press had published
an advertisement some time in the year 1991 seeking applications for
appointment on the post of Composing overseer/foreman. The petitioner
applied for the said post. After the advertisement was issued, some of the
employees of the Government Printing Press and the Employees Associations
filed Original Application (O.A.) No. 754/1991, challenging the advertisement
and praying that they should be appointed on the posts that were advertised.
The Tribunal granted an order of status quo in O.A.No.754/1991. In the
meanwhile, the Manager of the Government Printing Press had informed the
petitioner that the petitioner was selected for the post. It is the case of the
petitioner that, in view of his selection, he had resigned from his job in a
private printing press. On 6.10.1998, the Manager of the Government Printing
Press informed the petitioner that the post could not be filled as O.A. No.
754/1991 was pending before the Tribunal. On 30.03.2001, O.A. No.
wp.6255.13
754/1991 was disposed of. Certain directions were issued by the Tribunal in
the said order. After the O.A. No. 754/1991 was disposed of, the petitioner
made a representation to the Manager of the Government Printing Press
seeking appointment on the post of Composing overseer/foreman. Since the
respondents did not appoint the petitioner on the said post, the petitioner
filed the present Original Application, bearing O.A. No.363/2002 seeking a
direction against the Manager of the Government Printing Press to appoint the
petitioner on the post of Composing overseer/foreman or on any other suitable
post with effect from 31.03.1992. The Original Application was, however,
dismissed by the impugned order.
Since none appears on behalf of the petitioner, we have heard the
learned Assistant Government Pleader and have perused the impugned order
as also the documents annexed to the petition.
On a reading of the impugned order, we find that the Tribunal was
justified in rejecting the Original Application filed by the petitioner. The
Tribunal rightly held that a selected candidate would not have a right to seek
his appointment on the post of for which he/she was selected. While holding
so, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
reported in 1991 (3) SCC 47: (Shankarsan Dash vs.Union of India). It was
also found by the Tribunal that the advertisement was issued in the year 1991
and the Original Application was filed by the petitioner in the year 2002.
wp.6255.13
During the eleven years, there was an upgradation of the Government Printing
Press as the posts like the post of composing overseer/foreman became
outdated, in view of the advent of new technology. Since the post that was
advertised in the year 1991 did not exist when the Original Application
challenging the said advertisement was disposed of on 30.3.2001, there was
no occasion for the Manager of the Government Printing Press to appoint the
petitioner on the post of composing overseer/foreman on the basis of his so-
called selection in the year 1991-92. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that
in the circumstances of the case, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be
granted, more so, when a selected candidate like the petitioner would not have
a legal right to seek the appointment on the post for which he was selected.
Merely because the petitioner had given up the job in the private printing press
as soon as he was selected for the said post, would not have entitled the
petitioner to the relief claimed. The advertisement was issued in the year
1991. The Original Application was filed by the petitioner in 2002. The
Original Application was decided by the Tribunal in the year 2013. We are in
the year 2017 and a direction cannot be issued against the Manager of the
Government Printing Press to appoint the petitioner on the post which does
not exist or on any other post, after a lapse of more than 26 years from the
date of issuance of the advertisement. We find that the order of the Tribunal
is just and proper and the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of the
wp.6255.13
writ jurisdiction.
In the result, we dismiss the Writ Petition with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
