The Maharashtra Jeevan ... vs Shreeram Sopanrao Dikle And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1542 Bom

                                    1              904-RA 6058-2019.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 REVIEW APPLICATION (ST.) No. 6058 OF 2019
                                   IN
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 11139 OF 2015

 The Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
 Through its Member Secretary                                   .. Applicant

          Versus

 Shreeram S/o Sopanrao Dikle
 and others                                                     .. Respondents

 Mr. Deepak P. Bakshi, Advocate for the Applicant.
 Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/by D. R. Deshmukh and Vishal
 Chavan, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
 Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent No. 2.

                               CORAM :   S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                         SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATED : 22nd JANUARY, 2021.

PER COURT:-

. Mr. Bakshi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that while

passing the order under review this Court did not consider the

contention of the present review applicant that the original petitioner's

appointment was made from the quota reserved for Freedom Fighters

nominee as per the Government Resolution dated 04.03.1991 on the

post of Assistant Engineer which is a Group-B post. However, as per the

provisions of the Government Resolution, the Freedom Fighters

nominee could be appointed only on Group C and Group D posts and

1 of 4

2 904-RA 6058-2019.odt

not on Group B post. In view of that, the petitioner was not eligible to

be appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer. This Court while passing

the judgment under review did not consider the said aspect and only

considered the case from the point of view of age relaxation.

2. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned

counsel for respective parties.

3. While passing the order under review, we had considered that 13

persons were appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer Group

including the petitioner for a period of April to June 1997. The

Government Resolution was issued on 10.03.1997 instructing the

review applicant that the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II

should be filled in through M.P.S.C., however the selection process had

already commenced and these 13 persons were already appointed

pursuant to the selection process after conducting interviews. On

22.10.1997 the original writ petitioner was extended revised pay scale

of the post which he held. The petitioner was also made in-charge to

the post of Deputy Engineer in between 2002 - 2004. The services of

the original writ petitioner was also confirmed after completing the

probation period. It was also considered that the petitioner during his

career as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II passed the professional

examination of the said post. On 19.10.2001 the petitioner was

2 of 4

3 904-RA 6058-2019.odt

extended the benefits of permanency. In the draft seniority list for the

post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II, the name of the petitioner

appeared at serial no. 225. For the first time, on 07.05.2002 show

cause notice was issued to the petitioner that the post he held was to be

filled in by M.P.S.C. and why he should not be terminated. Similar

notices were issued to the other candidates. They had filed Writ

Petitions before the Principal Seat at Bombay and at Nagpur. In the said

Writ petitions directions were given to consider their long standing

services. Pursuant to the said directions, the interviews were conducted

through M.P.S.C. All the candidates including the petitioner were found

eligible. On 12.07.2012 order was issued holding that the petitioner

and other 12 persons were eligible for the post of Assistant Engineer

(Civil) Grade II and order to that effect was also issued on 12.07.2012.

The name of the petitioner appeared in the said order. Subsequently,

under order dated 16.07.2012 the name of the petitioner was deleted

only on the ground that at the relevant time of entry in service, the

petitioner was over aged and as such, the petitioner was sought to be

reverted. We observed that the same would be improper. The age limit

for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II and the Junior

Engineer to which the petitioner was sought to be reverted is same. The

petitioner was appointed after undergoing new selection process

for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II.

                                                                                   3 of 4





                                   4                 904-RA 6058-2019.odt

The petitioner never suppressed age or misrepresented his age at the

time of his entry in service. The petitioner had appeared for the

interview conducted by the M.P.S.C. under the directions of the original

respondent No. 2. After granting permanency and after long lapse of

time, it was inappropriate to discriminate the petitioner and treat

indifferently from the other 12 candidates.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, the review stands dismissed.

No costs.

 ( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI )                         ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
         JUDGE                                              JUDGE




 P.S.B.




                                                                              4 of 4