[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Prashant Babulal Gaikwad And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 2 December, 2025
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:33193-DB
1 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10268 OF 2025
1) Prashant Babulal Gaikwad
Age : 36 years, Occ. Service as Junior Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Tq.And Dist.Parbhani.
2) Mr. Piyush Prashant Patil
Age : 29 years, Occ. Service as Junior Engineer,
Dhule Irrigation Division, Dhule, Tq.& Dist. Dhule.
3) Mr. Mayur Gorakhnath Lad,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Ahmednagar Irrigation Division,
Dist. Ahmednagar
4) Mr. Rahul Dnyaneshwar Nemane,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer.
Dhule Irrigation Division, Dhule, Dist. Dhule.
5) Mr. Aakash Nana Sonwane
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer.
Dhule Medium Project Division,
Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.
6) Mr. Pradeep Sharmao Kharse
Age:- 29 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Mula Irrigation Division, Ahilyanagar,
Tq. & Dist. Ahilyanagar (Ahmednagar).
7) Mr. Mayur Bapu Patil,
Age:- 29 years, Occu :- Service as Junior Engineer,
Sulwade Jamphal Kanoli Lift Irrigation Division,
Dhule Tq. & Dist. Dhule
2 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
8) Mr. Sachin Suryamant Sasane
Age:- 36 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Lift Irrigation Division, Dharashiv, Tq. & Dist. Dharashiv.
9) Mr. Ghodke Namdev Hanmant
Age: 35 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
10) Mr. Nitish Devidasrao Eppar
Age: 33 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Irrigation Research Division, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
Tq. & Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
11) Mr. Vikas Ankush Shinde,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer.
Nandurbar Medium Project Divisional Unit,
Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar.
12) Mr. Laxman Sangram Kendre,
Age :- 34 years, Occu :- Service as Junior Engineer,
Upper Penganga Project Division no 4.
Akhada Balapur, Dist. Hingoli.
13) Mr. Satish Dinkar Nimbole,
Age:- 34 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
14) Mr. Viraj Maruti Bodhane
Age: 31 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
R/o. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Irrigation Division,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
15) Mr. Shivkumar Pralhadrao Bhumre,
Age: 31 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.7,
Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani.
3 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
16) Mr. Bhagwan Keshavrao Shinde,
Age: 31 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Purna Irrigation Division, Vasmat,
Dist. Vasmat.
17) Mr. Someshwar Nitin Holkar,
Age:- 30 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Lower Terna Canal Division No. 2,
Tq. & Dist. Latur.
18) Mr. Alpesh Rameshrao Ade,
Age: 33 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Upper Penganga Project Divisional Unit No.4,
Akhada Balapur, Dist. Hingoli
19) Mrs. Arati Mahadev Zadbuke,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer.
Beed Irrigation Division, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
20) Mr. Ravi Birgonda Khire,
Age: 35 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer.
Lendi Project Division Degloor, Dist. Nanded.
21) Mr. Chandrakant Prabhakar Dhangar,
Age: 33 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer.
Minor Irrigation Division, Jalgoan,
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
22) Mrs. Priti Shivaji Potdukhe,
Age:-28 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Jalgaon Medium Project Division No. 1,
Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
23) Mr. Ramesh Hanumanlu Lolpod,
Age: 31 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Upper Penganga Project Division No.8,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
4 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
24) Mrs. Mitkari Shradha Parappa
Age: 28 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur.
25) Mrs Ashwini Gajanan Shirsagar,
Age: 30 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Tq. & Dist. Chatrapati Sambhajinagar.
26) Mrs. Rupali Sunil Thakare,
Age: 27 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Jalgaon Medium Project Division No 1,
Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
27) Mr. Tushar Shashank Vispute
Age: 30 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Jayakwadi Irrigation Division, Nathnagar
North, Paithan, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
28) Mr. Rajesh Nilkanthrao Bajgire,
Age :- 33 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Upper Penganga Project Div. 8,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
29) Mrs. Komal Dattatray Sonawane,
Age: 33 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Upper Penganga Project Circle,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
30) Mr. Prathamesh Vaijnath Sude,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
31) Mr. Lalit Tukaram Chaudhari,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
5 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
Sulwade Jamphal Kanoli Lift Irrigation
Division, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.
32) Mr. Mandar Shripati Shelke,
Age: 38 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Sulwade Jamphal Kanoli Lift Irrigation Division,
Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.
33) Mrs. Girija Karbhari Patil,
Age: 26 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer.
Dhule Medium Project Division, Dhule,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule ...Petitioners
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Water Resource Department,
New Administration Building,
Hutamta Rajguru Chowk,
Mantralaya,Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai-400032
2) The Chairman
Selection Committee (State Level),
Cum Executive Director, Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation, Nagpur.
3) Mr. Shishir Shivaji Ganjale,
Age :- 29 years, Occu :- Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of
Sub Divisional Officer, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
Irrigation Sub Division No. 4,
Kannad, Taluka Kannad,
District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
4) Mr. Pankaj Ranjeet Shinde,
Age:-27 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of
the Regional Training Center,
6 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
5) Mr. Prashant Bhagwan Hurdale,
Age: 35 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional Officer,
Krishna Marathwada Construction Sub Division No. 2,
Dharashiv, District Dharashiv.
6) Mr. Vishal Chandrabhan Kotkar,
Age: 31 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional Engineer,
Upper Pravara Dam Sub Division No. 2,
Chitalvedhe, Taluka Akole,
District Ahmednagar.
7) Mr. Vaibhav Lalasaheb Adsul,
Age :- 32 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Superintending Engineer
and Administrator, Command Area Development Authority,
Beed, District Beed.
8) Mr. Adinath Rajendra Bhure,
Age:- 30 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional Officer,
Lower Terna Canal
Sub Division No. 8, Latur, District Latur.
9) Mr. Shrinath Sunil Kulkarni,
Age: 30 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional Officer,
Irrigation Sub Division No. 7,
Latur, Dist. Latur.
10) Mr. Sangramsinh Prabhakarrao Gund,
Age: 29 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Lift Irrigation Division,
Dharashiv, District Dharashiv.
7 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
11) Mr. Mayur Sanjay Tekale,
Age: 28 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Assistant Engineer,
Grade-1, Krishan Marathwada Construction
Sub Division No. 6, Tuljapur, District Dharashiv.
12) Mr.Pramod Dnyanoba Mirajkar,
Age: 36 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Latur Minor Irrigation
Division, Latur, District Latur.
13) Mr. Kapil Laxmikant Kulkarni,
Age: 39 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional Engineer
Field Canal Sub Division No. 5,
Tq. Parbhani, District Parbhani.
14) Mr. Rahul Rangnath Ghare,
Age :- 28 years, Occu:- Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Upper Pravara Dam Division,
Sangamner, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar.
15) Mrs. Anjali Mahadev Rakte
Age : Major, Occ. Junior Engineer
C/o. Executive Engineer, Jayakwadi Division, No.3
Beed,Tq.And Dist.Beed.
16) Mrs. Dipti Ashokrao Jarange
Age : Major, Occ. Junior Engineer
C/o. Executive Engineer, Hydrology Project Division,
Chh.Sambhajinagar, Tq. & Dist. Chh.Sambhajinagar.
17) Mr. Yogesh Sundar Rathod
Age : 30 yrs.Occ. Junior Engineer
Jayakwadi Irrigation Division No.3,
Beed, Tq.and Dist. Beed.
18) Mr. Govardhan Abhimanu Ubale
Age : 33 years, Occ. Junior Engineer
8 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
Office of Sub-Divisional Engineer,
Dharashiv Sub-Division No.05,
Tq.Paranda, Dist.Dharashiv. ...Respondents
(Respondent Nos. 17 and 18 are added
as per Hon'ble Court's Order
dated 19.08.2025)
*****
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Deshpande and Mrs.Upadhay Suchita.
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya
Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 14 : Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar Senior Counsel
i/by.Mr. V.B. Wagh and Shriniwas S. Wagh
Advocate for Respondent Nos.17 and 18 : Mr. V.D.Sapkal Senior Counsel a/w. Mr.
Atharva D. Khedkar i/by.Mr. Jiven Patil
******
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10279 OF 2025
1) Sandip Ganesh Kurliye,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Jayakwadi Irrigation Division, Paithan,
Tq. Paithan, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.
2) Swapnil Sandusing Chungada,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No.1,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
3) Mr. Aniket Mohan Halanwar,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Lift Irrigation Division, Dharashiv,
Tq. & Dist. Dharashiv.
4) Alkesh Sheshrao Rathod,
Age: 28 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
5) Govind Tukaram Shirure,
Age: 31 years, Occu: Service as Sub Divisional Officer,
9 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
Majalgaon Canal Division No.7,
Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. ..Petitioners
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Water Resource Department,
New Administration Building,
Hutamta Rajguru Chowk,
Mantralaya,Mumbai-32
2) Shishir Shivaji Ganjale,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Sub Divisional Officer,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Irrigation Sub Division No.4,
Kannad, Tq. Kannad,
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.
3) Pankaj Ranjeet Shinde,
Age: 27 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of the
Regional Training Centre, Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.
4) Prashant Bhagwan Hurdale,
Age: 36 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of the
Sub Divisional Officer, Krishna Marathwada
Construction Sub Division No.2, Dharashiv, Dist. Dharashiv.
5) Vishal Chandrabhan Kotkar,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Sub Divisional Engineer,
Upper Pravara Dam, Sub Division No.2,
Chitalvedhe, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahilyanagar.
6) Vaibhav Lalasaheb Adsul,
Age: 33 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
10 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
Non Gazetted In the Office of Superintending
Engineer & Administrator, Comand Area Development
Authority, Beed, Dist. Beed.
7) Adinath Rajendra Bhure,
Age: 31 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Sub Divisional Officer,
Lower Terna Canal Sub Division No.8, Latur, Dist. Latur.
8) Shrinath Sunil Kulkarni,
Age: 31 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Sub Divisional Officer,
Irrigation Sub Division No.7, Latur, Dist. Latur.
9) Sangramsinh Prabhakarrao Gund,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Lift Irrigation
Division Dharashiv, Dist. Dharashiv.
10) Mayur Sanjay Tekale,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Assistant Engineer,
Grade-I, Krishna Marathwada Construction
Sub Division No.6, Tuljapur, Dist. Dharashiv.
11) Pramod Dnyanoba Mirajkar,
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Latur Minor Irrigation
Division Latur, Dist.Latur.
12) Kapil Laxmikant Kulkarni,
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Sub-Divisional
Engineer Field Canal Sub-Division No.5.,
Parbhani, Dist.Parbhani.
13) Rahul Rangnath Ghare,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
11 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
Non Gazetted In the Office of Upper Pravara
Dam Division,Sangamner,
Tq.Sangamner,Dist.Ahilyanagar.
14) Yogesh Sundar Rathod
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Executive Engineer
Jayakwadi Irrigation,Division No.3
Tq.and Dist.Beed.
15) Govardhan Abhimanu Ubale,
Age: 33 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Sub-Divisional Engineer,
Dharashiv Sub-Division No.5,
Paranda Tq.Paranda,Dist.Dharashiv.
(Amendment carried out as per Hon'ble
Court's order dated 19.08.2025) ...Respondents
*****
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.Karlekar Sujeet G. and Mrs. Nikita Gore
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya
Advocate for Respondent Nos.2,5,6,9,11 to 13 : Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar Senior
Counsel i/by.Mr. V.B. Wagh and Shriniwas S. Wagh
Advocate for Respondent Nos.4,7,8,10,14 and 15 : Mr.V.D. Sapkal Senior Counsel
a/w. Mr. Atharva D. Khedkar i/by.Mr. Jiven Patil
*****
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10274 OF 2025
1) Dhiraj Babasaheb Patekar
Age : 29 years, Occ. Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Minor Irrigation Division No.1,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinar.
12 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
2) Sham Chagan Survase )
Age-32, Off. - Lower Terna Canal Division No.
2, Latur.
3) Rohit Madhukar Dhepe
Age-27, Off. Majalgaon Canal Division
No.10, Parbhani,
4) Dattatray Sanjay Kakade )
Age-32, Off. Majalgaon Canal Division No.7,
Gangakhed,
5) Pramod Baban Wadtile,
Age-32, Off. Jayakwadi Irrigation Division
No.3,Dist. Beed.
6) Rajendra Janardhan Parkhe
Age-42, Off. -Mula Irrigation Division,
Ahilyanagar,
7) Nitin Shivaji Dhole.
Age-34, Off. Ahilyanagar Medium Project
Division, Ahilyanagar,
8) Pooja Rajabhau Landgepatil
Age -28, Off. - Lower Terna Canal Division No.
2, Latur Dist. Latur. ...Petitioners
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra and Others
Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Water Resource Department,
New Administration Building,
Hutamta Rajguru Chowk,
Mantralaya,Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai-400032
2. Shishir Shivaji Ganjale,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service as Junior
13 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
Engineer, Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub
Divisional Officer, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
Irrigation Sub Division No. 4, Kannad, Taluka
Kannad, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
3. Pankaj Ranjeet Shinde,
Age: 27 years, Occu: Service as Junior
Engineer, Non Gazzetted in the office of the
Regional Training Centre, Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar District, Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar.
4. Prashant Bhagwan Hurdale,
Age: 35 years, Occu: Service as Junior
Engineer, Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub
5. Divisional Officer, Krishna Marathwada
Construction Sub Division No. 2, Dharashiv,
District Dharashiv.
5. Vishal Chandrabhan Kotkar,
Age: 31 years, Occu: Service as Junior
Engineer, Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub
Divisional Engineer, Upper Pravara Dam Sub
Division No. 2, Chitalvedhe, Taluka Akole,
District Ahmednagar.
6. Vaibhav Lalasaheb Adsul,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Service as Junior
Engineer, Non Gazzetted in the office of
Superintending Engineer and Administrator,
Command Area Development Authority,
Beed,District Beed.
7. Adinath Rajendra Bhure,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional Officer,
Lower Terna Canal Sub
Division No. 8, Latur, District Latur.
14 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
8. Shrinath Sunil Kulkarni,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub
Divisional Officer, Irrigation Sub Division No.7,
Latur, District Latur.
9. Sangramsinh Prabhakarrao Gund,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Lift Irrigation Division,
Dharashiv, District
Dharashiv.
10. Mayur Sanjay Tekale,
Age: 28 years, Occu: Service as Junior
Engineer, Non Gazzetted in the office of
Assistant Engineer, Grade-1, Krishan
Marathwada Construction Sub Division No. 6,
Tuljapur, District Dharashiv.
11. Pramod Dnyanoba Mirajkar,
Age: 36 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Latur
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur, District Latur.
12. Kapil Laxmikant Kulkarni,
Age: 39 years, Occu: Service as Junior
Engineer, Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub
Divisional Engineer Field Canal Sub Division
No. 5, Parbhani, District Parbhani.
13. Rahul Rangnath Ghare,
Age: 28 years, Occu: Service as Junior
Engineer, Non Gazzetted in the office of Upper
Pravara Dam Division, Sangamner, Taluka
Sangamner, District Ahmednagar.
14. Mr. Yogesh Sundar Rathod
Age : 30 yrs.Occ. Junior Engineer
Jayakwadi Irrigation Division No.3,
15 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
Beed, Tq.and Dist. Beed.
15. Mr. Govardhan Abhimanu Ubale
Age : 33 years, Occ. Junior Engineer
Office of Sub-Divisional Engineer,
Dharashiv Sub-Division No.05,
Tq.Paranda, Dist.Dharashiv. ...Respondents
******
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh h/f. Mr. Kaware Anand D.
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya
Advocate for Respondent Nos.2,5,6,9,11 to 13 : Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar Senior
Counsel i/by.Mr. V.B. Wagh and Shriniwas S. Wagh
Advocate for Respondent Nos.3,4,7,8,10,14 and 15 : Mr.V.D. Sapkal Senior
Counsel a/w. Mr. Atharva D. Khedkar i/by.Mr. Jiven Patil
******
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12842 OF 2025
1) Yashwant Dilip Khole
Age : 32 years, Occ. Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of
Majalgaon Canal Division No.7,
Gangakhed, Tq.Gangakhed,Dist.Parbhani. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Water Resource Department,
New Administration Building,
Hutamta Rajguru Chowk,
Mantralaya,Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai-400032.
2) Shishir Shivaji Ganjale,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
16 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
Non Gazetted In the Office of Sub Divisional Officer,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Irrigation
Sub Division No.4, Kannad, Tq. Kannad,
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.
3) Pankaj Ranjeet Shinde,
Age: 27 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of the Regional
Training Centre, Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.
4) Prashant Bhagwan Hurdale,
Age: 36 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of the Sun Divisional
Officer, Krishna Marathwada Construction
Sub Division No.2, Dharashiv,
Dist. Dharmshiv.
5) Vishal Chandrabhan Kotkar,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Sub Divisional Engineer,
Upper Pravara Dam, Sub Division No.2,
Chitalvedhe, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahilyanagar.
6) Vaibhav Lalasaheb Adsul,
Age: 33 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Superintending Engineer
& Administrator, Comand Area Development
Authority, Beed, Dist. Beed.
7) Adinath Rajendra Bhure,
Age: 31 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Sub Divisional Officer,
Lower Terna Canal Sub Division No.8,
Latur, Dist. Latur
8) Shrinath Sunil Kulkarni,
Age: 31 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
17 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
Non Gazetted In the Office of Sub Divisional Officer,
Irrigation Sub Division No. 7, Latur, Dist. Latur.
9) Sangramsinh Prabhakarrao Gund,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Lift Irrigation
Division Dharashiv, Dist, Dharashiv.
10) Mayur Sanjay Tekale,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Assistant Engineer,
Grade-L, Krishna Marathwada Construction
Sub Division No.6, Tuljapur, Dist. Dharashiv.
11) Pramod Dnyanoba Mirajkar,
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Latur
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur, Dist. Latur.
12) Kapil Laxmikant Kulkarni,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Sub Divisional Engineer
Field Canal Sub Division No.5,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
13) Rahui Rangnath Ghare,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of Upper
Pravara Dam Division, Sangamner,
Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahilyanagar. ...Respondents
******
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.Mahesh Deshmukh i/b. Mr. Umesh B. Gite and Mr.
Viraj Yelmane.
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya
Advocate for Respondent Nos.2,5,6,9,11 to 13 : Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar Senior
Counsel i/by.Mr. V.B. Wagh and Shriniwas S. Wagh
Advocate for Respondent Nos.3,4,7,8,10 : Mr.V.D. Sapkal Senior Counsel a/w. Mr.
18 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
Atharva D. Khedkar i/by.Mr. Jiven Patil
******
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12583 OF 2025
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Water Resource Department,
New Administration Building,
Hutamta Rajguru Chowk,
Mantralaya,Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai-400032 ... Petitioner
VERSUS
1) Shishir Shivaji Gangale
Age : 29 years, Occ. Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazetted In the Office of
Sub-Divisional Officer,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Irrigation Sub-Division No.4,
Kannad Tq. Kannad,
Dist.Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
2) Tushar Subhash Belokar,
Age: 28 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of the Assistant
Executive Engineer, Katepurna Barrage
Sub Division, Akola, District Akola. (DELETED)
3) Pankaj Ranjeet Shinde,
Age: 27 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzètted in the office of the
Regional Training Center, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
District Chatrapati Sambhajinagar.
4) Vikram Shivajirao Sawant,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Service as
Junior Engineer, Non Gazzetted
in the office of the Sub Divisional Engineer,
19 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
Warna Left Bank Canal Sub Division No. 4,
Shirala (H.Q. Peth Vasahat),
Islampur, Taluka Walawa, District Sangli. (DELETED)
5) Sanjay Shivaji More,
Age: 36 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Assistant
Engineer, Grade-1, Tembhur Left Irrigation
Project, Sub Division No. 11, Vita, Taluka Khanapur. (DELETED)
6) Vishal Dhondiram Sabale,
Age: 35 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional Engineer,
Quality Control Sub Division,
Sangli, District Sangli. (DELETED)
7) Prashant Bhagwan Hurdale,
Age: 35 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional Officer,
Krishna Marathwada Construction Sub Division No. 2,
Dharashiv, District Dharashiv.
8) Ajay Shripati Pundikar,
Age: 34 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Executive Engineer,
Kolhapur Irrigation Division (North),
District Kolhapur. (DELETED)
9) Vishal Chandrabhan Kotkar,
Age: 31 years, Occu: Service as
Junior Engineer, Non Gazzetted
in the office of Sub Divisional Engineer,
Upper Pravara Dam Sub Division No. 2,
Chitalvedhe, Taluka Akole,
District Ahmednagar.
10) Vaibhav Lalasaheb Adsul,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Superintending
20 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
Engineer and Administrator, Command
Area Development Authority, Beed,
District Beed.
11) Sharanappa Sidharam Kiwade,
Age: 31 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Assistant Engineer,
Grade-1, Nira Irrigation
Sub Division, Nira, District Pune. (DELETED)
12) Adinath Rajendra Bhure,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional Officer,
Lower Terna Canal Sub Division No. 8,
Latur, District Latur,
13) Surajsinh Rajendrasinh Rajput,
Age: 31 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional Engineer,
Jigaon Lift Irrigation Sub Division No. 4,
Khamgaon, Taluka Khamgaon. (DELETED)
14) Shrinath Sunil Kulkarni,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional Officer,
Irrigation Sub Division No. 7, Latur, District Latur.
15) Pritam Tukaram Chorade.
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Ujjani Canal Sub
Division No. 38. Machnur, Taluka Mangalwedha,
District Solapur. (DELETED)
16) Shiva Radheshyam Karwa,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Sub Division No. 3. Malegaon
(Construction), Taluka Malegaon,
District Washim. (DELETED)
21 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
17) Sangramsinh Prabhakarrao Gund,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Lift Irrigation Division,
Dharashiv, District Dharashiv.
18) Mayur Sanjay Tekale,
Age: 28 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Assistant Engineer,
Grade-1, Krishan Marathwada Construction
Sub Division No. 6, Tuljapur, District Dharashiv.
19) Pramod Dnyanoba Mirajkar,
Age: 36 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Latur Minor Irrigation
Division, Latur, District Latur.
20) Milind Namdeo Rane,
Age: 46 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional
Engineer, Jigaon Project Rehabilitation Sub Division No. 2,
Shegaon, District Buldhana. (DELETED)
21) Kapil Laxmikant Kulkarni,
Age: 39 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional Engineer
Field Canal Sub Division No. 5. Parbhani, District Parbhani.
22) Shubham Giridhari Jaiswal,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional Engineer,
Upper Wardha Irrigaion Sub Division No.1,
Morshi, District Amravati. (DELETED)
23) Rahul Rangnath Ghare,
Age: 28 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Upper
Pravara Dam Division, Sangamner,
Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar.
22 WP.No.10268 of 2025.doc
24) Tushar Bhashkar Farkade,
Age: 28 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted m² in the office of Sub Divisional Engineer,
Lower Pedhi Canal Sub Division No. 2. Amravati,
District Amravati. (DELETED)
25) Yogesh Pundlikrao Mahulkar,
Age: 38 years, Occu: Service as Junior Engineer,
Non Gazzetted in the office of Sub Divisional
Engineer, Bembla Irrigation Sub Division No. 1,
Kalamb, District Yavatmal. (DELETED)
...Respondents
******
AGP for Petitioner/State : Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1,3,7,9,10,12,14,17 to 19,21 and 23 : Mr. P.R.
Katneshwarkar Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. V.B. Wagh and Shriniwas S. Wagh
******
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 15.10.2025
PRONOUNDED ON : 02.12.2025
JUDGMENT :
( PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.)
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with
consent of the parties.
2. This group of five Petitions is taken up together for hearing and
decision since, the challenge therein is to the common Judgment and
Order dated 10.07.2025 passed by Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'M.A.T.'),
Bench at Aurangabad in Original Applications No.1304 of 2024 and
1254 of 2024.
FACTS :-
3. The Respondent/State issued an Advertisement dated
15.02.2016 (Advertisement No.01/2016) for filing up 1256 posts of
Junior Engineer (Civil) (Group-B) (Non-Gazetted) on the
Establishment of 'The Water Conservation Department of the State
of Maharashtra'. The number of vacancies were reduced to 1202. The
recruitment process culminated in preparing a select list of 1202
candidates and waiting list as well. An order of appointment to the
candidates in the select list was issued on 25.01.2017. Only 1020 of
1202 selected candidates, joined. 182 posts remained vacant. An
order of appointment to 142 candidates in the waiting list was issued
on 23.11.2017. Again, on 24.01.2018, another order of appointment was
issued for 25 more candidates in the wait list.
4. The provisional Gradation/Seniority list was prepared and
published vide Circular dated 20.09.2023. On hearing objections
thereto, a final Gradation/Seniority list was published on 16.04.2024.
The Respondent Nos. 3 to 18 herein challenged the said final
Seniority/ Gradation list by filing two Original Applications No. 1304 of
2024 and 1254 of 2024 before the M.A.T. The M.A.T. allowed the
original applications. The petitioners are therefore before us in these
Writ Petitions.
SUBMISSIONS :-
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Ajay Deshpande appearing for the
petitioners in Writ Petition No.10268 of 2025 would submit that, these
petitioners were not made parties to the Original Applications before
the M.A.T. The Respondent/State too did object to the applications
on the ground that the applications were bad for non-impleading the
necessary parties. The learned Advocate appearing for the
Applicants in Original Application No. 1304 of 2024 assured the M.A.T
to take corrective measures, by the next date of the matter.
Petitioners herein had moved an application seeking intervention in
the Original Applications. The said application was kept pending and
even no order was passed thereon, till the original application was
decided on merits. The Learned Presiding Officers of the M.A.T., on
hearing learned Advocate for the Original Applicants, had expressed
disinclination to allow the Original Applications. One of the petitioners
herein was consistently present during the hearing of the Original
Applications. He has filed an affidavit to that effect in these Writ
Petitions. Since the M.A.T. had expressed a view on the merits of the
matter, the petitioners herein, did not press for orders on their
applications for intervention. To the utter surprise of the petitioners,
the M.A.T. changed it's view and allowed the Original Applications.
According to the learned Advocate, while the Presiding Officers of the
M.A.T. had decided to change their view, the petitioners herein who
were going to be prejudicially affected by the changed view, ought to
have been given full opportunity of hearing. According to learned
Advocate, in the given circumstances, the Intervention Application
ought to have first been allowed. According to him, the petitioners to
be on the safer side filed their written notes of arguments in the
matter. According to learned Advocate, hearing a person as a party
to the proceedings is quite different than entertaining the said party
as an Intervenor and deciding the matter by simply giving the said
Intervenor, an opportunity to submit the written notes of arguments.
The petitioners thus, lost opportunity to submit pleadings in the
matter and counter the case of the original applicants.
6. Turning to the merits of the matter, the learned Advocate for
the petitioners would submit that, the merit based selection is an
essential concomitant of rule of law. The one who scores more
marks must find place above those who secured lesser
marks, subject to vertical and horizontal reservations. According to
him as on the date of decision/order impugned herein, the
'Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 2021' were
holding the field. These rules superseded the Seniority Rules of 1982
i.e. Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982.
The M.A.T. therefore ought to have considered the Seniority Rules of
2021, for deciding the original applications.
7. Learned Advocate would further submit that the petitioners
were from the select list. Their appointments order was issued on
25.01.2017. The respondents herein ( Respondents No.3 to 18) were
from the wait list. The applicants in Original Applications had even not
completed 8 years of service for being considered for the next
promotional avenue. There was therefore, no cause for the applicants
therein to prefer original applications. Hearing and deciding the
Original Applications was therefore, nothing but an academic
exercise which should not have been undertaken unless, there is
someone to have in fact been affected.
8. According to learned Advocate, the petitioners herein had relied
on the judgment of a Division Bench of M.A.T. ( Principal Seat) in case
of Abhijeet Jotiram Talvekar and Others vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Others in Original Application No. 862 of 2016. The
M.A.T did not refer thereto. Since, it was a decision rendered by a
Co-ordinate Bench, the same was binding on the Division Bench of
the M.A.T. which passed the order impugned herein.
9. According to learned Advocate, had the M.A.T. considered the
said decision, it would have referred the matter for decision by a
larger bench or it could have followed a decision in Abhijeet Talvekar
(supra) case. In such circumstances, the decision of the original
applications would have been different, than the one impugned herein.
According to learned Advocate, the Respondent/State had issued a
Government Resolution dated 28.05.2018 specifically informing that
the candidates appointed from the wait list should not be given
march over and above the candidates appointed from the select list.
The said G.R was not under challenge in the original applications. The
judgments in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Others reported in 1994 (4) SCC 602 and R.
Ranjith Singh vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in
SLP (C) No. 20061 of 2022 could have been distinguished on facts.
The M.A.T. ought not to have relied on those judgments. According to
learned Advocate, selected candidates and wait listed candidates
form a distinct and separate class by themselves. Both category
candidates cannot be clubbed for the purpose of seniority. Moreso,
when there was a long time gap between issuance of orders of
appointment to the candidates in the select list and those in the wait
list. The M.A.T. ignored the State Government's policy of reservations
i.e. vertical and horizontal reservation as well. The learned Advocate,
in the first instance, urged for setting aside the order impugned
herein. He then, in the alternative submitted for remanding the matter
back to the M.A.T for decision afresh, after giving the petitioners a full
opportunity of hearing. In support of his submissions, the learned
Advocate relies on the following authorities :
(i) K. Ajit Babu and others vs. Union of India and others reported
in AIR 1997 SC 3277;
(ii) Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Association vs. State
of Gujarat and Others reported in 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 591;
(iii) Krishnadatt Awasthy vs. State of M.P reported in AIR ONLINE
2025 SC 116;
(iv) The Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (M.A.T.) in Original Application
No.771 of 2024 and connected matters therein ;
(v) The Judgment and Order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the
M.A.T. in Original Application No.862 of 2016
10. Learned Advocate Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh appearing for the
petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10274 of 2025 reiterated the
submissions advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Ajay Deshpande. He
would further submit that the original application was bad in law in as
much as all the employees likely to be affected by the decision of the
M.A.T. were not made parties thereto. He would further submit that
two private respondents were none other than the wives of the
Applicants. It was therefore, nothing but a shadow contest. Moreover,
it was nothing short of a fraud on the M.A.T. Since, wives of the
Applicants, to save institutions of marriage, bound to not seriously
contest the claims made by their husbands. Turning to the merits of
the case, learned Advocate would submit that the Original
Applicants, could not be given march over the candidates appointed
pursuant to the select list. The candidates in the wait list did not have
any right to seek an appointment. The appointment of wait listed
candidates in place of those who could not join was fortuitous. In
support of his submissions, he relied on the following host of
Authorities :
RELATING TO SENIORITY :
(i) Pawan Pratap Singh and Others vs. Reevan Singh and Others
reported in (2011) 3 SCC 267
(ii) Uttaranchal Forest Rangers Assn. (Direct Recruit) And Others
vs. State of U.P and Others reported in (2006) 10 SCC 346
(iii) Rajendra Kumar Verma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported
in 2023 SCC Online MP 5312.
(iv) The Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of
India and Anr. vs. Pallavi Gupta and Ors. and connected matters
therein in WP(C) 14908 of 2022.
RELATING TO NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES :
(I) State of Jammu and Kashmir and others vs. Sat pal reported
in (2013) 11 SCC 737
(ii) Prabodh Verma and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others with connected matters reported in (1984) 4 SCC 251
(iii) Rashmi Mishra vs. M.P. Public Service Commission and Others
reported in (2006) 12 SCC 724.
(iv) The Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vishnu
Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
with connected matters therein in Civil Appeal No. 7777 of 2023.
11. Learned A.G.P representing the State for respondents in Writ
Petitions Nos. 10268 of 2025, 10274 of 2025,10279 of 2025 and 12842
of 2025 also toed the line of arguments of learned Advocate
representing the petitioners in Writ Petition No.12583 of 2025. He
mainly relied on the judgment in the case of Harish Manganlal Baijal
vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 585,
to submit that selection and appointment of the concerned
respondents was under fortuitous circumstances since, the
candidates in the select list did not join for one or the other reasons.
12. Learned Advocate Mr. Karlekar appearing for the petitioners in
Writ Petition No. 10279 of 2025 made submissions consistent with
the submissions referred hereinabove. He relied on the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Amarjeet Singh and Others vs. Devi
Ratan and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 417. He first took us
through the Seniority Rules, 1982 with a view to interpret them in the
letter and spirit. According to him, the candidates in the select list
constitute one batch. Subsequent appointments of candidates from
the wait list would necessarily be a case of different batch/es.
13. Learned Advocate Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh in Writ Petition
No.12842 of 2025 reiterated the arguments/submissions referred
hereinabove.
14. Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
respondents would on the other hand submit that Clause 14 (B) of the
advertisement clearly spells that selected and appointed candidates
would get their inter se seniority in terms of their rankings in the
select list. He would further submit that the government did not have
any authority to change the rules of the game once the recruitment
process commenced. According to him, the rights of the respondents
are protected under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Texts of both these Articles were heavily relied upon. According to
learned Advocate, there is no reservation in promotion. Promotion is
based on the seniority list. The seniority list is based purely on the
merit. Learned Senior Advocate adverted our attention to Rule 4 (2)
of Seniority Rules, 1982. According to him, it has been specifically
stated in the rule that, on any post or on any cadre, if the candidate
is selected for appointment from one batch, he is entitled to be
appointed within 30 days and the seniority list shall be prepared on
the basis thereof. Seniority inter se direct recruits selected in one
batch for appointment to one post, cadre or services shall be
determined according to their ranks in the order of preferences
arranged by the Commission/Selection Board. Relying on the
Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and
Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2634 of
2013 with connected matters, he would submit that recruitment
process shall be deemed to have commenced with a notification,
followed by an advertisement and it concludes with filling up of
notified vacancies. The selected candidate is entitled to appointment
according to the merit and reservation. Appointments are made. If
post remains vacant then those from the waiting list-who are of the
same recruitment process are appointed. Reference is made to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal and
Others vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (1995) 2 SCC
745. According to learned Senior Advocate, the notified vacancies
were 1202 in number. The recruitment process commenced with the
advertisement dated 15.02.2016 (No.01/2016), could only be deemed
to have been over/concluded only on appointments of the number of
vacancies advertised. The appointments made were either to be
from the select list or wait list. Ultimately, all those who find place in
select or wait list were all equal. When it comes to the preparation of
seniority list, there is no reservation in promotion. A common
seniority list therefore, must be prepared which must be based on
rank. Rank means merit. Any other method would be violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to learned
Senior Advocate, the waiting list is an integral part of select list. The
selection is based on merits of the candidates. According to him, the
Apex Court has an occasion to consider the term 'Batch' in the case
of A.Raghu Son of Rajesh vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others
reported in 2015 AIR (SC) (Supp.) 873. According to him, whether
select list is prepared in one batch or in two, the answer is 'No' since,
there was one advertisement, to which the petitioners and initially
appointed candidates appeared. Paragraphs Nos. 14 and 16 of the
judgment in the case of A.Raghu (supra) were adverted to for
interpreting the select list and wait list. The learned Senior Advocate
proposed to rely on M.P.S.C. circular dated 31.05.2016. It speaks of life
of waiting list to be for one year. The waiting list is not prepared as a
separate list but as a part of merit list itself, which is used as waiting
list whenever there is non-availability of posts : Relevant portion
reads thus :
"The intention of this process is that when the Commission, by
adopting a transparent and disciplined process, prepares a merit
list, all the posts advertised shall be filled in. Many times,
though, the recommended candidate does not join duty for any
reason, then the candidate from the merit list (waiting list) is
recommended. That remains valid for 1 year. If we properly read
this communication, then it is very clear that the merit list is one
and the same, bifurcated into recommendation list and waiting
list, and the waiting list itself becomes recommendation list.
Therefore, entry in the cadre is the same and the same principles
need to be applied. This is clarified in pursuance of the rules
framed by MPSC.
In many cases the candidates do not posses necessary
documents. and for that no fault can be found with the present
respondents.
The contentions of the respondents are supported by two
judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bimlesh Tanwar
and Manoj Parihar. After considering the ratio laid down in both
these judgments, which underline the constitutional guarantee
under Article 14 and 16, the principle is that whenever seniority
is to be maintained, it has to be on the basis of merit among the
candidates who are selected for the said post."
15. Learned Senior Advocate relied on following Authorities :
(I) Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. (supra)
(ii) A.Raghu Son of Rajesh (supra)
(iii) Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in
(2003) 5 SCC 604.
(iv) Manoj Parihar and Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and
Ors. in Special Leve Petition (C) No.11039 of 2022
(V) R.K.Sabharwal and Others (supra)
16. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sapkal appearing for
respondents No.17 and 18 in Writ Petition No. 10268 of 2025 would
submit that it is not a case that the petitioners have not at all been
given an opportunity of hearing. According to him, the question is
whether the petitioners did not have a reasonable opportunity of
hearing. He adverted our attention to the written notes of arguments
submitted by the petitioners before the M.A.T. It has also been titled
as "Affidavit in Reply". Then he adverted our attention to the orders
impugned herein. The M.A.T has duly considered the case of the
petitioners. The learned Senior Advocate relied on the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. M/s. Krishna
Stores reported in AIR 1997 SC 871. Then he relied on the judgment
in the case of V.P. Shrivastava and Others vs. State of M.P and
Others reported in (1996) 7 SCC 759 to submit that, principle of
determination of seniority was in issue before the M.A.T and the
State Government/department was very much there to defend it's
case to submit that the petitioners were not necessary parties.
Paragraph No. 14 of V.P. Shrivastava and Others (supra) was
adverted to. The learned Senior Advocate then relied on the
judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Shukla and Others vs. Arvind Rai
and Others reported in (2022) 12 SCC 579. Paragraphs No.
21,23,30,40,44,45,51 and 52 were specifically adverted to. It was a
case of issue of seniority of candidates selected through one and
the same selection process. Even appointment orders were issued
at one and the same time. For one or the other reasons, viz. Court's
intervention, some of them got the postings late. It was a case of
appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer in three streams. It was
a feeder cadre for the promotional post of Assistant Engineer.
. The learned Senior Advocate then relied on the judgment in the
case of A. Raghu (supra) to submit that, the candidates selected in
furtherance of one and the same notification would constitute one
batch although posting might have been given to them on different
dates. He then relied on the judgment in the case of Manoj Parihar
and Others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others reported in
(2022) 14 SCC 72.
17. The learned Senior Advocate adverted our attention to Clause
14 (B) in the advertisement and then our attention was drawn to
Clause ' fuoM izfdz;k o fu;qDrh ' appearing in the advertisement. It was
also submitted that in the appointment order dated 25.01.2017, it was
specifically stated that the seniority of all the appointed candidates
would be considered in terms of The Maharashtra Civil Services
(Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982 (in short M.C.S.R. Rules,1982).
According to the learned Senior Advocate, it was a provisional
gradation list. After publication of the select list, some of the
selected candidates did not appear for verification of documents and
some did not have pre-requisite documents and some in spite of
finding a place in the select list, did not join. The selection committee
therefore, took a decision to issue appointment orders to the Original
Applicants. Learned Senior Advocate adverted our attention to the
marks of some of the candidates in the select list and wait list as
well, to submit that, the candidates in the wait list did secure marks
more than some of the candidates in the select list. According to him,
the final seniority list was to be prepared on the basis of the merit
and merit alone. He also adverted our attention to the minutes of the
meeting dated 15.07.2017 wherein it has been observed that 83
candidates did not appear for verification of documents. 61
candidates did not join in spite of appointment order to have been
issued etc. The learned Senior Advocate supported the order
impugned herein and ultimately submitted for dismissal of the Writ
Petitions.
18. We have considered the submissions advanced. Perused the
documents and authorities relied on. A short question which falls for
consideration in these Writ Petitions is as to whether the candidates
appointed from the wait list could not be given seniority over and
above the candidates appointed from the select list.
19. An advertisement (No.01/2016) was published on 15.02.2016 for
filling up 1256 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) Group-B (Non-
Gazetted).The number of vacancies was reduced to 1202. The
Committee headed by the Chief Engineer, Vidharbha Irrigation
Development Corporation was constituted to complete the
recruitment process. A select list was published. Candidates in the
select list were called for verification of their documents. The
candidates in the select list were issued with order of appointment
on 25.01.2017. 1020 candidates in the select list joined the services.
182 posts remained unfilled. A wait list containing 142 candidates had
already been prepared. The selection/recruitment committee with the
previous nod of the state government in the concerned department
decided to fill up the vacant posts. On 23.11.2017, an order of
appointment was issued to 142 candidates. Some of them did not
join. Again, on 24.01.2018 appointments order was issued to 25
candidates in the wait list. The further promotional avenue from the
feeder cadre of 'Junior Engineer' is 'Assistant Engineer'. The Junior
Engineer completing eight years of service, is in the zone of
consideration for the next promotional avenue. No seniority list i.e
provisional or final was prepared until August 2023. It was only on
20.09.2023, a provisional seniority list was prepared and published.
The petitioners herein raised objections thereto. A final gradation list
was thereafter published on 16.04.2024. The private respondents in
all the Writ Petitions preferred Original Applications No. 1304 of 2024
and 1254 of 2024 challenging the same before the M.A.T.
20. Since the recruitment and consequential appointment orders
did take place from the period 2016 to 2018, seniority/gradation would
be governed by 'The Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of
Seniority) Rules, 1982' and not by 'The Maharashtra Civil Services
(Regulation of Seniority) Rules,2021'. Needless to mention that, the
rules of 2021 could not be given retrospective effect else rights of the
appointees prior thereto would get affected thereby. Reliance on
Government Resolution dated 28.05.2018 would also be of little
consequence since, the appointments/postings to the petitioners
and respondents were given before the said G.R was issued and in
none of the appointment orders particularly, dated 23.11.2017 and
24.01.2018 there is mention that their seniority would be considered
from the date of their joining the post. The clause No.3 in the G.R. of
May 2018 therefore, have no application to the issue at hand.
ß3- ojhy izek.ks eqnrok< fnY;kuarjgh lacf/kr mesnokj :tw u
>kY;kl] lacaf/kr mesnokjkaps fu;qDrh vkns'k jn~n djkosr o v'kk fjDr
inkaoj iqUgk vuqdzes izfr{kk;knhrhy vU; mesnokjkauk fu;qDrh ns.;kckcr
fu;qDrh izkf/kdk&;kauh fopkj djkok- ek=] izfr{kk;knhrhy mesnokjkauk fu;qDrh
ns.;kpk fu.kZ; ?ksrY;kl] v'kk mesnokjkaph T;k vkns'kkUo;s fu;qDrh gksbZy
R;k vkns'kkuqlkj rs T;k fnukadkl :tw gksrhy R;k fnukadkl R;kaph T;s"Brk
fu/kkZfjr dsyh tkbZy- R;kauk ewG xq.koRrk ;knhuqlkj T;s"Brsps ykHk vuqKs;
jkg.kkj ukghr- R;kizek.ks izfr{kk;knhrhy mesnokjkaP;k fu;qDrh vkns'kkr Li"V
mYys[k dj.;kr ;kok-Þ
21. Before adverting to the further factual matrix, it would be
apposite to refer to the relevant M.C.S.R (Regulation of Seniority)
Rules, 1982 (in short 'Seniority Rules, 1982'). Section 3 (c) of the
Seniority Rules, 1982 defines the term "Continuous Service" mean 'in
relation to any post, cadre or service means service continuously
rendered by a person in that post, cadre or service or in any higher
post, cadre or service without interruption by way of reversion to a
lower post,cadre or service'. Rule 4 speaks of 'General principles of
seniority' which reads thus :
"4. General principles of seniority : (1) Subject to the other
provisions of these rules, the seniority of a Government servant in any
post, cadre or service shall ordinarily be determined on the length of his
continuous service therein:
Provided that, for the purpose of computing such service, any
period of absence from the post, cadre or service due to leave, deputation
for training or otherwise or on foreign service or temporary officiating in
any other post shall be taken into account, if the competent authority
certifies that the Government servant concerned would have continued in
the said post cadre or service during such period, had he not proceeded
on leave or deputation or been appointed temporarily to such other post:
Provided further that, the service, if any, rendered by him as
result of a fortuitous appointment [except in a case where the competent
authority certifies that, it was not expedient/possible or practicable to
make a regular appointment strictly in accordance with the ratio of
recruitment as prescribed in relevant recruitment rules, with the brief
reasons recorded therefor], shall be excluded in computing the length of
service and for the purpose of seniority he shall be deemed to have been
appointed to the post or in the cadre or service on the date on which his
regular appointment is made in accordance with the provisions of the
relevant recruitment rules.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1).--
(a) the inter se seniority of direct recruits selected in one batch for
appointment to any post, cadre or service, shall be deter-mined according
to their ranks in the order of preference arranged by the Commission,
Selection Board or in the case of recruitment by nomination directly
made by the competent authority, the said authority, as the case may be,
if the appointment is taken up by the person recruited within thirty days
from the date of issue of the order of appointment or within such
extended period as the competent authority may in its discretion allow:
(b) the inter se seniority of Government servants promoted from a
Select List shall be in the same order in which their names appear in such
Select List. If the Select List is prepared in two parts, the first part
containing the names of those selected unconditionally and the second
part containing the names of those selected provisionally. All persons
included in the first part shall rank above those included in the second
part:
Provided that, if the order in which the names are arranged in the
Select List is changed following a subsequent review of it, the seniority of
the Government servants involved shall be rearranged and determined
afresh in conformity with their revised ranks:
(c) the seniority of a transferred Government servant vis-a-vis the
Government servants in the posts, cadre or service to which he is
transferred shall be determined by the competent authority with due
regards to the class and pay-scale of the post, cadre or service from which
he is transferred, the length of his service therein and the circumstances
leading to his transfer.
(3) Where the dates of appointing in posts, cadre or service of any two
or more persons determined after assigning the deemed dates, if
necessary, are identical the person senior in age shall be considered as
senior for the purpose of determining the seniority."
. The terminology of rule 4 admits of not more than one
interpretation. The general proposition is that seniority of a
government servant shall ordinarily be determined on the length of his
continuous service therein, meaning thereby the date of joining the
service is important one. Sub-rule 2 has overriding effect.
22. The issue involved in these Writ Petitions is as to inter se
seniority of direct recruits. The issue therefore, would be governed by
rule 4 (2) (a) of Seniority Rules, 1982.
23. True, in terms of clause 14 (b) in the advertisement, merit of the
candidate in the select list would govern his/her Serial No. in the
gradation list. In case the rules governing the field are inconsistent
with clause 14(b), the rules would prevail. After giving due regard to
policy of vertical and horizontal reservations, the select list was
prepared. Admittedly, all the private petitioners herein are from the
select list. They were given appointment order on 25.01.2017. Since,
some of the candidates in the select list did not join or found to be
not eligible in view of, having not possessing requisite documents,
did not join. As a result, a few vacancies remained unfilled. Eight
months after the petitioners and others in the select list joined the
postings, a decision was taken to fill up vacant posts by issuing
appointment orders to the candidates in the wait list. The said
appointment orders thus, came to be issued on 23.11.2017 and the
next one on 24.01.2018. The question is whether all the candidates
appointed pursuant to the recruitment process initiated vide
Notification dated 15.02.2016 (Advertisement No.01/2016), would
constitute one batch, as the terminology of clause (a) of rule 4(2) of
Seniority Rules, 1982 suggests.
24. Admittedly, the names in the select list were arranged in terms
of the merits of the respective candidates, necessarily on following
vertical and horizontal reservations. In our view, had all the
candidates in the select list joined the posts, there was no question
of even the private respondents dreaming of getting appointments. It
is only because a few in the select list did not join and/or some other
did not have requisite documents, the posts remained unfilled. The
recruiting authority even could have been content with issuing the
orders of appointment in the select list alone. Luck smiled on the
candidates in the wait list only when the state government decided to
fill up the vacant/unfilled posts from the candidates in the wait list.
Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in case of Gujarat State Dy.
Executive Engineers Association (supra) observed thus :
"8. Coming to the next issue, the first question is what is a waiting
list?; can it be treated as a source of recruitment from which
candidates may be drawn as and when necessary?; and lastly how
long can it operate? These are some important questions which do
arise as a result of direction issued by the High Court. A waiting list
prepared in service matters by the competent authority is a list of
eligible and qualified candidates who in order of merit are placed
below the last selected candidate. How it should operate and what
is its nature may be governed by the rules. Usually it is linked with
the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For instance,
if an examination is held say for selecting 10 candidates for 1990
and the competent, authority prepares a waiting list then it is in
respect of those ten seats only for which selection or competition
was held. Reason for it is that whenever selection is held, except
where it is for single post, it is normally held by taking into account
not only the number of vacancies existing on the date when
advertisement is issued or applications are invited but even those
which are likely to arise in future within one year or so due to
retirement etc. It is more so where selections are held regularly by
the Commission. Such lists are prepared either under the rules or
even otherwise mainly to ensure that the working in the office does
not suffer if the selected candidates do not join for one or the other
reason or the next selection or examination is not held soon. A
candidate in the waiting list in the order of merit has a right to
claim that he may be appointed if one or the other selected
candidate does not join. But once the selected candidates join and
no vacancy arises due to resignation etc. or for any other reason
within the period the list is to operate under the rules or within
reasonable period where no specific period is provided then
candidate from the waiting list has no right to claim appointment
to any future vacancy which may arise unless the selection was
held for it. She has no vested right except to the limited extent,
indicated above, or when the appointing authority acts arbitrarily
and makes appointment from the waiting list by picking and
choosing for extraneous reasons.
9. A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the
Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is
operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected
candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may
be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there
is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of
policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting
list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies
have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from
the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be
sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who
become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future.
If the waiting list, in one examination was to operate as an infinite
stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State
Government may resort to the device of not holding an
examination for years together and pick up candidates from the
waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline
requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise
of power which may result in creating a vested interest and
perpetrate waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the
cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even
from service.
12. .................................................................
A candidate from the waiting list appointed subsequently
cannot claim appointment from a back date. Even otherwise
appointment of a candidate operates from the date he is appointed
and not from the date those from the select list are appointed."
25. In case of Pawan Pratap Singh and Others (supra) it has been
observed as follows :
"From the above, the legal position with regard to determination of
seniority in service can be summarized as follows:
(i) The effective date of selection has to be understood in the
context of the service rules under which the appointment is made.
It may mean the date on which the process of selection starts with
the issuance of advertisement or the factum of preparation of the
select list, as the case may be.
(ii) Inter se seniority in a particular service has to be determined
as per the service rules. The date of entry in a particular service or
the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing
seniority inter se between one officer or the other or between one
group of officers and the other recruited from the different sources.
Any departure therefrom in the statutory rules, executive
instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(iii) Ordinarily, notional seniority may not be granted from the
back date and if it is done, it must be based on objective
considerations and on a valid classification and must be traceable
to the statutory rules.
(iv) The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of
occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively
unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules. It is
so because seniority cannot be given on retrospective basis when an
employee has not even born in the cadre and by doing so it may
adversely affect the employees who have been appointed validly in
the mean time."
26. No retrospective seniority can be granted when an employee
has not even been born in the cadre so as to adversely affects the
direct recruits validly appointed as stated in the case of Uttaranchal
Forest Rangers Assn. (Direct Recruit) And Others (supra).
27. With all respect at our commands, we are of the view that the
Judgment of the Constitution Bench in case of Tej Prakash Pathak
and Ors. (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand. Although it has
been held therein that recruitment process commences from the
issuance of the advertisement, calling for applications and ends with
the filling of notified vacancies. Clause 13 reads thus :
"13. The process of recruitment begins with the issuance of
advertisement ane ends with the filling up of notified vacancies. It
consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of
applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of
ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for
interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful
candidates for appointment."
. The issue in case of Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. (supra) was
as to whether the rules of the game (process of selection and
appointment) could be changed after the recruitment process
commences or concluded. It was a case wherein, by a resolution
dated 30.11.2004, the Administrative Committee of the High Court
resolved to conduct written examination for 75 marks and interview
for 25 marks. It was also resolved that the minimum qualifying marks
for the OC-20, BC-21, SC-22 and ST-23 candidates shall be as
prescribed earlier. Following the High Court's direction, written
examination was held on 30.1.2005, and its results were declared on
24.2.2005 wherein 83 candidates were successful. Interviews were
held in March 2006. Thereafter, the marks obtained by those 83
candidates were aggregated and a consolidated merit list was
prepared in the order of merit on the basis of the aggregate marks.
The merit list inter alia contained marks secured in the written
examinations out of 100; marks secured in the interview out of 25;
and the total marks secured in the written examination and interview
out of 125. Based on that list, the Administrative Committee approved
the selection of ten candidates as per merit and reservation.
However, the Full Court did not agree with the select list prepared.
Consequently, the Chief Justice constituted a Committee of Judges
for preparing a fresh list. The Committee recommended that in place
of 100 marks for the written examination and 25 marks for the
interview, the candidates should be evaluated with reference to 75
marks for the written examination and 25 marks for the interview in
line with earlier resolution dated 30.11.2004, The Committee also
recommended that the minimum pass percentage applied for the
written examination to determine the eligibility of the candidates for
appearance in the interview should also be applied for interview
marks, and those who failed to secure such minimum marks in the
interview should be considered as having failed.
. The issue as to whether the candidates appointed from the
wait list could be given march over the candidates appointed from the
select list was not at all before the Apex Court.
28. The judgment of the Apex Court in case of A. Raghu Son of
Rajesh (supra) is also of little consequence to decide the present
Writ Petitions. Since in terms of rule 15 Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil)
Subordinate Rules, the inter se seniority of Sub-inspectors shall be
fixed on completion of training in the police training college and not at
the time of selection in accordance with the list which shall be
arranged in the order of merit. It was a case that pursuant to the
selection process, candidates were deputed for training in two
batches. The Apex Court observed that rule 15 leaves no room for
any doubt that the merit position in the select list shall not to be
taken into consideration while determining the inter se seniority of
candidates selected from a common process of selection. The
service of candidates who were selected from a common process of
selection was to be determined on the basis of final aggregate marks
obtained by them during the course of their training at the police
training college (s). This made all the difference. The case of Bimlesh
Tanwar (supra) could also be of little assistance to the private
respondents herein. Admittedly, the observations in the said
judgment are based on factual matrix emerging therein. Seniority of
the appointed candidates was to be determined on the basis of their
entry in the register maintained by the High Court. Rule 8 and 10 of of
the 'Rules Relating to the Appointment of Subordinate Judges in the
Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch), 1951 were for consideration in
the said matter.
29. In our view, the candidates in the select list would constitute
one batch. The M.A.T heavily relied on the judgment of the Apex Court
in Bimlesh Tanwar (supra) to pass the order impugned herein. In view
of the M.A.T., it was a single process of recruitment initiated
pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.02.2016 (No.01/2016) and
therefore, candidates in both select and wait list, would constitute
one batch.
30. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the private
respondents were appointed only because of candidates in the
select list either did not join or found to have no requisite documents.
As such, the appointments of the candidates in the select list is
fortuitous. In our view, the candidates in the select list constitutes
one batch. We are relying on the judgment of Apex Court in the case
of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Association (supra).
According to us the candidates in the wait list ( private respondents
herein) could not be given seniority over and above the candidates in
the select list (petitioners).
31. For these reasons, the order impugned herein is liable to be set
aside.
ISSUE-II (NECESSARY PARTY)
32. It is true that the petitioners (except in Writ Petition No.12583 of
2025) were not made parties to the Original Applications. Some of
the petitioners had appeared before the M.A.T and presented
intervention application. An objection was also raised on behalf of the
respondents/State on the ground of non-joinder of necessary
parties. A submission was made on behalf of the Applicants in
Original Applications that a needful would be done (corrective
measures would be taken). Nothing however, happened. The
intervention application remained pending. The fact is however, that
the petitioners had placed on record of the M.A.T. their affidavits in
reply cum written arguments. True, it was filed in January 2025. Order
impugned herein was passed long thereafter. The fact is however
that, all the grounds of objections raised by the intervenors
(petitioners) except in Writ Petition No. 12583 of 2025 have been
addressed by the M.A.T. It therefore, could not be said to be a case
of these petitioners to have not been granted a reasonable
opportunity of hearing. So far as regards nor referring to the
judgment in the case of Abhijeet Jotiram Talvekar and Others (supra)
decided by co-ordinate bench of M.A.T, Mumbai is concerned, since
the matter is decided on merits, the said issue is not adverted to in
details.
33. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitions succeeds.
Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed by setting aside the
order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal (M.A.T.) in Original Application No.
1254 of 2024 and Original Application No. 1304 of 2024 and
the final gradation/seniority list as well.
(ii) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) ( R.G.AVACHAT, J.)
. After pronouncement of the Judgment, learned counsel for the
respondents prays for stay of this operative order. The said prayer
stands rejected.
( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) ( R.G.AVACHAT, J.)
vsj
