Sachin Uttam Shinde And Others vs Vrushali Balkrishna Tambe And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10231 Bom

                                        1                    WP / 10308 / 2022



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     920 WRIT PETITION NO.10308 OF 2022

                   SACHIN UTTAM SHINDE AND OTHERS
                               VERSUS
                VRUSHALI BALKRISHNA TAMBE AND OTHERS

                                        ...
                  Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Dixit Sushant V.
                 AGP for the respondent - State : Mr. A.S. Shinde
                                        ...

                                CORAM       : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                              SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

DATE : 4 OCTOBER 2022

ORAL ORDER (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) :

The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated

17-11-2021 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Bench

at Aurangabad in Original Application no. 57 of 2020. The Original

Application was instituted by respondent no. 1 herein challenging her

position in the seniority list. By the impugned judgment and order, the

Tribunal has issued directions to place the name of the respondent

no. 1 in the seniority list in accordance with Rule 9 of the Range Forest

Officer in the Maharashtra Forest Services Group B (Gazetted)

(Recruitment) Rules, 2014, as notified on 05-02-2015.

2. Petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the decision of the

Tribunal. They were not impleaded as party respondents in the

2 WP / 10308 / 2022

Original Application. Therefore, they have filed the present petition

assailing the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal.

3. In K. Ajit Babu and others Vs. Union of India and others;

AIR 1997 SC 3277, it has been held that if a person is adversely

affected by earlier judgment of the Tribunal, he has remedy of filing

fresh Original Application before the Tribunal. Thus, the petitioners

would have a remedy of filing a fresh Original Application before the

Tribunal and to urge the Tribunal to take a different view than the one

taken in the impugned judgment and order.

4. We, therefore, decline to entertain present petition keeping

open the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal by filing fresh

Original Application.

5. If such Original Application is filed, the same be decided by

the Tribunal on its own merits.

6. Petition is disposed of. All the contentions are left open.

     [ SANDEEP V. MARNE ]                            [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
           JUDGE                                          JUDGE

arp/