Bombay High Court
Sanjay Upasrao Ghode And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 29 January, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, R. I. Chagla
Digitally signed
Jitendra by Jitendra S.
S. Nijasure
Date: 2021.02.01
Nijasure 12:12:30 +0530
1-wp-13025-2019.doc
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13025 PF 2019
Sanjay Upasrao Ghode & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
----------
Mr. S.S. Ghate, for the Petitioners.
Mr. V.S. Gokhale, 'B' Panel Counsel for the State.
Mr. Rahul Nerlekar, for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
----------
CORAM : K.K. TATED &
R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 29 January 2021
ORDER :
1. Heard learned Counsel for parties.
2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the Petitioners are mainly seeking directions against
the Respondents to implement the Government Resolution
dated 14th January, 2016.
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits
1-wp-13025-2019.doc
that in Writ Petition No.303 of 2016, the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench by order dated 4th May,
2016 held that Clause (b) of Rule 29 of the Rules, 2000 is
quashed and set aside. The operative part of the said order
reads thus:-
a) Clause (b) of Rule 29 of the Rules of 2000 is
quashed and set aside.
b) The High Court on the Administrative Side is
requested to frame Rules, therein providing for
adequate reservation in the total cadre strength
of Group 'C' posts for promotion to the employees
in Group 'D' posts, in the light of the observations
made by us hereinabove. The said Rules shall be
framed within a period of three months from
today.
c) It is further directed that the stay granted by
the Court to the process of appointments to the
posts of Group 'C' by order dated 18.1.2016 shall
continue to operate till the Rules are framed by
the High Court on the Administrative Side.
d) Needless to state that, after the Rules are
framed, respondent nos.1 and 2 shall be free to
make appointments to the posts reserved for
direct recruits and promotees as per the said
Rules.
46. At this stage, Mr. A.S. Jaiswal, learned Senior
Counsel requests for grant of stay to this order for
a period of twelve weeks from today. However, in
the light of the view we have taken, we are not
inclined to consider the said request. Hence, the
same is rejected.
1-wp-13025-2019.doc
4. In view of this fact, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners
submits that the Respondents may be directed to implement
the Government Resolution dated 14th January, 2016 with
immediate effect.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. Nerlekar
appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that, they
preferred the Special Leave Petition No.22449 of 2016 and in
that the Apex Court passed an order dated 8th August, 2016
and granted stay to the operation and implementation of the
judgment dated 4th May, 2016 passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.303 of 2016. He submits that the High Court of
Bombay at Nagpur Bench considering the validity of Rule 29
(b) specifcally observed in paragraph 6 about this Government
Resolution. Paragraph 6 reads thus:-
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the proviso which restricts number
of promotions to 10% of the vacancies in any
restricted year is also violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The learned Counsel, relying
on the Government Resolution dt.10.5.2005
submits that the State Government itself, vide the
said Resolution, has provided that 25% of the
posts in Group "C" category be ear-marked for
flling up the said by promotion from Group "D"
employees. It is submitted that, by subsequent
resolution dt.14.1.2016, the said 25% reservation
has now been increased to 50%.
1-wp-13025-2019.doc
6. The learned Counsel for Respondents submits that in
view of these facts, there is no question of entertaining present
Writ Petition at this stage. He further submits that this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to vacate the ad-interim relief granted by this
Court on 25th June, 2019 in terms of prayer clause (iv). He
submits that because of the ad-interim relief granted it is not
possible for them to recruit the staff in the Industrial Court.
7. We heard both sides at length. There is no dispute that in
view of the Apex Court order dated 8th August, 2016, there is
no question of passing ad-interim or interim relief in the
present Writ Petition. In any case, the ad-interim relief granted
by this Court on 25th June, 2019 is required to be vacated
because it is not possible for them to recruit the candidates
from the District Courts or any other Court. but same can be
allowed subject to outcome of the present Writ Petition, so that
the Petitioners rights can be protected. Hence the following
order:-
(a) Admit.
(b) Ad-interim protection granted by this Court on 25th
June, 2019 is vacated.
1-wp-13025-2019.doc
(c) Respondents are permitted to make recruitment
subject to the outcome of the present Writ Petition, so that the
Petitioners rights can be protected, if they succeed in the
present Writ Petition.
(d) Mr. Nerlekar for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 waives
services.
(e) Liberty granted to the parties to move before this
Court for fnal hearing once the SLP No.22449 of 2016 is
decided by the Apex Court.
[R.I. CHAGLA J.] [K.K. TATED, J.]
