Back
VIBHA KANKANWADI, VRUSHALI V. JOSHI
Nilay Suresh Bhoge – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)
The present petition challenges the judgment and order passed in Original Application No.1228/2023 by learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench Nagpur ("MAT", for short) with the civil applications. The petitioners are the original appellants who had filed the said Original Application to set aside the communication dated 06-12-2023 rejecting the objections of the applicants and to quash and set aside the final seniority list dated 04-12-2023 of the Range Forest Officers (hereinafter referred to as "the RFOs"), consequential prayer to declare that all the directly appointed/nominated RFOs seniority will be fixed from the date of successful completion of their training and to direct the respondent Authorities to prepare a fresh seniority list of the RFOs.
2. Before turning to the rival contentions, the facts giving arise to the Original Application are required to be considered. The applicants were initially appointed as 'Forester' which is a feeder cadre for the post of RFO. They were promoted as Ad-hoc RFOs in the year 2014 vide order dated 01-03-2014. Since that date they were working as RFOs. The recruitment and the appoint
The court established that training periods for direct recruits are not counted as service until successful completion, impacting seniority rights.
Seniority of foresters appointed under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme is determined from training date, upholding compliance with existing rules and rejecting retrospective claims based on merger a....
Statutory rules prevail over government resolutions in determining seniority and service requirements.
Seniority in service is a statutory right determined by established merit lists, with waiting list candidates lacking rights to precedence over those appointed from the main list.
Seniority – Date of entry in a particular service or date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or other or between one group of officer....
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
Seniority assigned to any employee could not be changed after a lapse of 7 years, though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed.
The court held that settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a long period, emphasizing the principle of res judicata and the limits of administrative power in altering promotion dates.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
