Bombay High Court
Shri Uttam Bidesingh Rajput vs The Presiding Officer,The ... on 11 May, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp2858.00.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2858 OF 2000
Uttam s/o. Bidesingh Rajput,
Aged 55 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Govt. College of Education,
Buldana. .. APPELLANT
//Versus//
1. The Presiding Officer,
The Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Mumbai Bench,
Mumbai.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Higher and
Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3. Secretary,
Department of S.W. and C.A.
and Tourism Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
4. The Director of Higher Education,
Central Building, Pune. .. RESPONDENTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.P.R.Agrawal, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms Nivedita Mehta, A.G.P. for Respondent/State.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 02:23:07 :::
2 wp2858.00.odt
CORAM : B.R.GAVAI &
N.W.SAMBRE, JJ.
DATED : May 11, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per N.W.Sambre, J) :
1. Heard Mr.P.R.Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner
and Ms Nivedita Mehta, learned A.G.P. for Respondent/State.
2. The petitioner appears to have been selected as a
Lecturer to work in the Government College of Education pursuant
to the selection process carried on 31st December, 1982. As the
petitioner was belonging to Rajput Bhamta (Nomadic Tribe), he
sought appointment from the said category. However, in view of
invalidation of his caste claim on May 7, 1983, he was not granted
any appointment.
3. An attempt before this Court by the petitioner has
resulted into remand of his claim, which was earlier remanded to
the Committee by order dt.16.7.1983. After his claim was again
invalidated by the Committee on February 23, 1988., the second
petition of the petitioner came to be allowed and this Court has
declared that the petitioner belongs to Rajput Bhamta (Nomadic
Tribe). While dealing with the said petition, this Court has observed
3 wp2858.00.odt
that the claim of the petitioner be considered for appointment to
the post of Lecturer.
4. After the petitioner was appointed in the month of
August, 1989, he approached to the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal through O.A. No.220 of 1995 and amongst others, one of
the ground raised was that one Mr.Bute, who was similarly situated,
was granted appointment, though his caste claim was invalidated.
The petitioner tried to equate his claim with those of the candidates
who were found to be placed in the Seniority List at Serial Nos. 27
to 32.
5. Mr.P.R.Agrawal, learned Counsel, in the aforesaid
background, while inviting attention of this Court to the factual
matrix would urge that, from day one he approached this Court,
one post was kept vacant, hence, he should be placed in seniority
list at par with that of other candidates who were selected along
with him and placed at Sr. Nos.27 to 32. The Tribunal, after
hearing the claim of the petitioner, turns down the said request of
the petitioner.
6. Mr.P.R.Agrawal, learned Counsel would urge that,
considering the fact that the claim of present petitioner was
granted by this Court on 23rd February, 1988 validating his caste
claim, he is entitled to be placed in the seniority list of Lecturers
4 wp2858.00.odt
who were selected along with him and placed in the Seniority list at
Serial Nos. 27 to 32. So as to substantiate his claim, he would rely
upon the case of one Mr.Bute, who was similarly placed and was
selected along with him and was granted benefit of seniority.
Mr.Agrawal, learned Counsel then would urge that since the post
was kept vacant during pendency of the petition, the petitioner is
entitled for seniority.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.P. would try to differentiate the
case of the petitioner with that of one Mr.Bute who was selected
along with the petitioner on the ground that the benefit given to
said candidate Mr.Bute was by virtue of orders and indulgence
shown by this Court. In addition, she would urge that, in none of
the orders passed by this Court at the behest of the petitioner, no
mandatory orders are passed granting accommodation to the
petitioner on the post in question and as such, the case of the
petitioner cannot be treated to be at par with that of the case of
Mr.Bute. According to her, the order of Tribunal does not call for
any interference for want of perversity or illegality and hence, she
has sought dismissal of the present petition.
8. It is required to be noted from the available record that
the petitioner approached this Court first in point of time when the
order dated July 16, 1983 was passed in his favour, remanding the
matter to the Scrutiny Committee for decision afresh on the issue
5 wp2858.00.odt
of validation. In the said petition, there was no any mandate from
this Court to grant him provisional appointment, though it is
claimed that it was policy at relevant time. Perhaps no prayer was
made to the effect granting him appointment pending validation
claim.
9. In the second round of litigation, at the behest of
petitioner, this Court on 23rd February, 1988, while dealing with
Writ Petition No.4353 of 1984, has observed that the claim of the
petitioner, particularly as regards he belonging to Rajput Bhamta
(Nomadic Tribe), is required to be allowed. However, an
observation is made that the Authority shall consider the claim of
the petitioner for appointment to the post for which he applied for.
From the said observations, it is amply clear that from the date of
his selection i.e. 31st December, 1982 till 23rd February, 1988
there was no interim order in his favour directing his appointment
on the post of Lecturer for which there was selection. The only
order that was available to the rescue of the petitioner at the
relevant time was to keep the post vacant. If the said claim of the
petitioner is considered in the backdrop of claim of Mr.Bute, who
was selected along with the petitioner, in the case of Mr.Bute, there
was mandatory order passed by this Court directing appointment
pursuant to the selection carried out in the year 1982, which does
not appear to be in the case of the petitioner.
6 wp2858.00.odt
10. In the aforesaid background, we hardly notice any
illegality in denying claim of the present petitioner, particularly as
regards placement in the seniority list. No perversity could be
noticed with the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal. The petition, as such, lacks merits. Hence, the same is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
jaiswal
