Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah & 2 Others vs Dnyaneshwar Shankarrao Mange And ... on 21 June, 2018
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, Z.A.Haq
1 wp3782.04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3782/2004
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Engineer, P.W. Region,
Amravati.
3. The Executive Engineer, P.W.
Division, Amravati. ..Petitioners.
..Vs..
1. Dnyaneshwar S/o Shankarrao Mange,
aged about 38 Yrs., Occu. Service,
R/o P.W.D. Quarters, Morshi Road,
Warud, Distt. Amravati.
2. Namdeo S/o Ramchandra Khekade,
aged about 44 Yrs., Occu. Service,
R/o P.W.D. Quarter No.4, Aalakananda
Building, Kanta Nagar, Amravati. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for petitioners.
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ, JJ.
DATED : 21.6.2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. Heard Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for petitioners and Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for respondents. Perused impugned order dated 7.6.2002 delivered by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in Original Application (O.A.) No.389/2001.
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2018 02:49:51 :::
2 wp3782.04
2. It appears that respondents recruited originally in the office of Commissioner of Dairy Development after recommendation of Regional Selection Board as Junior Engineers, were absorbed in Irrigation Department. In that department, as per Government Resolution dated 16.4.1984 all Junior Engineers with graduate qualification came to be designated as Assistant Engineers (Grade II) and given status of Gazetted Officer. The 13 Junior Engineers similarly placed, as that of respondents, were given status of Assistant Engineer.
3. However, by impugned action this status was sought to be taken away. Hence, challenging that order dated 26.4.2001 and with a prayer to regularize them as Assistant Engineers (Grade II) from their date of appointment, they filed original application. Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in impugned order after hearing all concerned found that as per Government Resolution dated 23.2.1996 respondents were appointed in specified pay-scale as Assistant Engineers (Grade II). This order also mentions that said post was given pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200 from 1.1.1986. It is issued subject to approval of Maharashtra Public Service Commission (for short "M.P.S.C.").
4. Respondents got benefit of this order and it is their case that accordingly they were also interviewed by M.P.S.C.. They pleaded before ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2018 02:49:52 ::: 3 wp3782.04 Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 2.7.1997 that there was approval of M.P.S.C. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has, however, found that their placement as Assistant Engineer (Grade II) was subject to approval by M.P.S.C. and petitioners were not in a position to produce any negative remark or refusal to approval by M.P.S.C. It is also not clear whether assessment of respondents was done by M.P.S.C. or not.
5. However, as it found that M.P.S.C. had not refused approval it has set aside impugned action and restored a status of respondents as Assistant Engineer (Grade II).
6. Advocate Narawade during arguments is seeking time to place on record affidavit pointing out that in the meanwhile M.P.S.C. has also issued necessary approval. According to him, result of 1997 interview conducted by M.P.S.C. has been declared in 2010 when both petitioners have been approved as Assistant Engineer (Grade II). We are not inclined to delve into this aspect. We are satisfied that vide Government Resolution dated 23.2.1996 they were not promoted conditionally. If they were to be removed, burden was upon petitioners to show that M.P.S.C. had rejected the approval. As this was not the position on the date on which impugned action is taken, we do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity in the approach of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2018 02:49:52 :::
4 wp3782.04
7. No case is, therefore, made out. Writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2018 02:49:52 :::