The court emphasized the importance of adherence to statutory rules, the principle of impossibility, and the prospective nature of statutes unless expressly made retrospective.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Respective Counsel waive service.

3. The challenge raised in this petition is to the order dated 06-7-2018 passed by respondent No. 2-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur whereby the petitioners were reverted from the post of Junior Administrative Officer to Senior Assistant.

4. Succinctly, the facts of the case are as follows:

(a) On 03-11-2004 petitioner No. 1 was appointed by nomination with respondent No. 2- Zilla Parishad on the post of Senior Assistant in the Scheduled Caste Category. On 23/24-12- 2007 petitioner No. 1 appeared for departmental examination and the result of the said examination was declared on 25-11-2008. In March 2009, he was confirmed. By order dated 21-7-2009, he had been promoted to the post of Superintendent.

(b) On 30-9-2003 petitioner No. 2 was appointed to the post of Senior Assistant. She appeared for a departmental examination and the result of the examination was declared on 26-12-2006. She was confirmed for the post of Senior Assistant in March 2009. On 28-2-2008 she was promoted.

(c) On 31-3-2017 respondent No. 1 issued a Government Resolution in respect of the fixation of the seniority list as per the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Service (Post Recruitment Examination) Rules, 1985 (for short “Rules of 1985”). The petitioners were appointed after 2000 and therefore, they were governed by the Rules of 1999. However, as per the Government Resolution dated 31-3-2017 (For short ‘the G.R. of 2017’) the seniority list has been published wherein the names of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were shown at S. Nos. 244 and 214 respectively.

(d) On 07-4-2018 seniority list for the post of Junior Administrative Officer was published for the period from 01-1-2000 to 01-1-2008. Thereafter, the petitioners have been reverted from the post of Junior Administrative Officer to the post of Senior Assistant. Hence, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

5. Mr. V.D. Raut, learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the petitioners passed the departmental examination in the years 2007 and 2006 respectively and they were promoted to the next post in 2009. Therefore, passing the reversion order based on the G. R. of 2017, by respondent No. 2 is illegal and contrary to the Rules. In fact, the said G.R. of 2017 is not applicable as they were passed the examination and also promoted prior to coming into existence of the G.R. of 2017. Lastly, he submitted that there is no provision to revert the petitioners. He has claimed that no show cause notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order impugned was offered. Therefore, he urged that the said order be set aside. To buttress his submissions, he has relied on the following judgments:

(a) State of Maharashtra vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar, 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 393

(b) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 639

(c) P. Mahendran and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 411

6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously argued that as per the Rules of 1985, the petitioners failed to clear the examination within a prescribed period and therefore, as per the G.R. of 2017, they are not entitled to the promotion. Hence passing of the impugned order by respondent No. 2-Chief Executive Officer is just, legal, and proper. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the Rules as well as the G.R. of 2017 and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

7. We have appreciated the rival contentions. Perused the record, relevant Rules, G.R. of 2017 and Authorities.

8. A short but crucial question arises whether the passing of the impugned order by respondent No. 2-Chief Executive Officer is just, legal, and proper.

So as to ascertain the real controversy, we would like to reproduce Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules of 1985 as under:

“4. Period and number of chances for passing examination