M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.A.Kumbhakoni, leaned Advocate General along with Mr. Akshay Shinde, the learned AGP, B-Panel counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.A. Bandiwadekar, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 19, 20 and 23.

2. By order dated 5th September 2018, we had issued notice for final disposal to the respondents returnable on 1st October 2018. On 1st October 2018, since the petition was amended in the meanwhile, we once again permitted service of private notice for final disposal to all the respondents, who were by that date unserved. There is no dispute that all the respondents have been duly served in the matter. In fact, the contesting respondents are represented by Mr. G.A. Bandiwadekar. Accordingly, the petition was finally heard on 24th October 2018.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 14th September 2017 made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Mumbai allowing Original Application No.764 of 2015 instituted by the respondents declaring that the respondents were Group 'C' employees and immune from the Revenue Division Allotment for appointment by nomination and promotion to the posts of Group 'A' and Group 'B' (Gazetted and Non-Gazetted) of the Government of Maharashtra Rules, 2015. The impugned judgment and order further directs the petitioners – State to act in accordance with such declaration within a period of eight weeks from the date of said judgment and order.

4. In the present case, we are concerned with the promotions and postings to the post of Assistant Accounts Officers (said post) in the Directorate of Accounts and Treasury. By order dated 6th August 2015, 87 Officers from the Feeder cadre were promoted to the said post on the basis of results of competitive examinations and by associating Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) with the process.

5. From out of 87 appointees to the said post, 27 appointees instituted O.A. No. 764 of 2015 before the MAT seeking the following substantive reliefs:

“(a) By a suitable order, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order dated 6.8.2015 issued by the Respondent No.1 (EXHIBIT-A) to the extent of allotment of place of posting of the Petitioners on appointment by selection in the cadre of the Maharashtra Finance and Accounts Services Group-B [Non Gazetted] and accordingly, the Petitioners be granted all the consequential service benefits, as if the impugned order had not been passed.

(b) By a suitable order, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondents to decide the pending common representation of the Petitioners dated 14.8.2015 in the light of the G.R. dated 11.8.2014 all within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the order and to communicate the reasoned/speaking order thereon to the Petitioners.

(c) In the alternative and without prejudice to above, by a suitable order, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold and declare that the matter regarding the posting on appointment of the Petitioners to the post of the Maharashtra Finance and Accounts Services Group-B [Non Gazetted] stood governed by 'the Divisional Cadre Structure and the Divisional Cadre Allotment for appointment by Nomination to the posts of Group-A and Group-B [Gazetted and Non Gazetted] of the Government of Maharashtra Rules, 2010' dated 8.6.2010 [EXHIBIT-E] and not retrospectively by the latest Rules called as “the Revenue Division Allotment for appointment by way of nomination and promotion to the post of Group-A and Group-B [Gazetted and Non Gazetted] of the Government of Maharashtra Rules, 2015” dated 28.4.2015 [EXHIBIT-G] and accordingly, the Petitioners be granted all the consequential service benefits.

(d) By a suitable order, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold and declare that the matter regarding the posting on appointment by selection of the Petitioners to the post of the Maharashtra Finance and Accounts Services Group-B [Non Gazetted] did not f