Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Bom) 821

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
Smt. Samiksha, D/o. Ramakant Chandrakar and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.9163 Of 2022 With Writ Petition No. 9631 Of 2022 With Writ Petition No. 9632 Of 2022 With Writ Petition No. 12675 Of 2022 With Writ Petition No. 11692 Of 2022 With Writ Petition No. 12699 Of 2022 With Writ Petition No. 11762 Of 2022
Decided On : 08-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties :Shri Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate a/w Shri Akhilesh Dubey, Shri Uttam Dubey, Shri Amit Dubey, Shri Krishna P. Rodge, Shri Rajuram Kuleriya i/by Law Counsellors, Adv., Shri Akhilesh Dubey, Advocate a/w Shri Jiwan J. Patil, Adv., Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate a/w Shri Ujwal S. Patil and Shri Bhalchandra Shinde, Advs., Shri Ajay Deshpande, Shri Swapnil Joshi, Shri Sameer Kurundkar and Shri Sandip Kulkarni, Advs., Shri Ram S. Apte, Senior Advocate, Special Counsel a/w Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP, Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Shri Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate a/w Shri P.P. More, Adv., Shri Shri Sushant Dixit, Advocate a/w Shri Pandurang Gaikwad, Adv., Shri Avinash S. Deshmukh a/w Shri S.G. Joshi, Advs.

The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Deputy Collectors (Recruitment, Fixation of Seniority and Confirmation) Rules, 1977 - Seniority dispute between Promotee Deputy Collectors and Directly Appointed Deputy Collectors - Tribunal identified lack of adherence to Rules while publishing final seniority list on 31.12.2020, resulting in Promotee Deputy Collectors being pushed down from earlier seniority positions. (Paras 3, 6, 27, 38)

(B) Administrative Tribunal's finding that temporary promotions did not adhere to requisite consultation with Maharashtra Public Service Commission, leading to granting executive powers to appoint Deputy Collectors without valid seniority establishment. (Paras 63-65)

(C) Court emphasized importance of rules concerning seniority and appointments, upholding principle that length of service on ad-hoc basis cannot be counted for seniority. (Paras 108-110)

Facts of the case:
Eight Writ Petitions challenge the validity of the final seniority list for Deputy Collectors issued by the State. Petitioners claim irregular seniority adjustments favoring Directly Appointed Deputy Collectors at the expense of Promotee Deputy Collectors, leading to grievances over unfair treatment and lack of due process.

Findings of Court:
Decision to uphold Tribunal's ruling that the final seniority list issued was flawed and failed to comply with mandatory statutory provisions, directing the State to adhere to proper procedures going forward.

Issues: The main issues were the adherence to appointment rules mandated under the 1977 Rules, the legitimacy of the released seniority list, and the extent of the recommendations for correcting discrepancies in the list.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that seniority must strictly adhere to pre-established rules, emphasizing that ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights. The variations in opinions from Tribunal members were noted and ruled as leading to a flawed execution of seniority protocols.

Result: Writ Petitions were dismissed, but the directive to correct the seniority list persisted.

Table of Content
1. introduction of case background and parties involved. (Para 1 , 3)
2. petitioners' arguments against the final seniority list. (Para 4 , 5)
3. discussion of legal requirements regarding seniority. (Para 6 , 10 , 16 , 17)
4. judgments addressing seniority and appointment rules. (Para 18 , 25 , 34)
5. key observations regarding promotional irregularities and compliance with rules. (Para 19 , 21)
6. final orders regarding the petitions. (Para 85 , 88 , 108)
7. final conclusions regarding promotions and seniority legitimacy. (Para 110 , 112)

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

We are reminded of the words of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in O.P. Singla and another vs. Union of India and others , (1984) 4 SCC 450 :-

“Once again, we are back to the irksome question of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits”.

2. In this judgment, for the sake of brevity, the ‘Directly Appointed Deputy Collectors’ would be referred to as ‘DDC’ and the ‘Promotee Deputy Collectors’ would be referred to as ‘PDC’.

3. The two Petitions (Transfer Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2021) were filed by Shivaji Tukaram Shinde with Sunil Vitthalrao Yadav and Smt. Samiksha Ramakant Chandrakar with Pandurang Ramrao Kulkarni. These four Applicants (PDC) had challenged the final seniority list of the officers in the cadre of Deputy Collectors for the period 01.01.1999 to 31.12.2003 published by the State vide circular dated 31.12.2020, which was the impugned seniority list. The grievance of these Applicants was that they had been wrongly pushed down from Sr.Nos.411 and 413 (provisional seniority list published on 24.09.2009) to Sr.Nos.599 and 603, respectively, by the impugned final seniority list published on 31/12/2020. The other two were pushed down from Sr.Nos.323 and 328 to Sr.Nos.500 and 506, respectively. It was contended that the State desired to favour the DDC and hence, the seniority of the PDC was wrongly reckoned with from the date, other than their date of continuous officiation. For the sake of brevity, the prayers in Transfer Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2021, are reproduced hereunder :-

A) Rule may kindly be issued.

B) Rule may kindly be made absolute by quashing & setting aside the impugned final seniority list of the cadre of Deputy Collectors dated 31/12/2020 (Annex. H) prepared & published by Resp. No. 1.

C) Rule may kindly be made absolute by further directing the Resp. No. 1 to prepare & publish a fresh final seniority list of the cadre of Deputy Collectors perfectly in tune with the provisions of Rules 4, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of the "Maharashtra Deputy Collectors (Recruitment, Fixation of Seniority and Confirmation) Rules, 1977 and on the basis of the provisional seniority list already prepared & published on 24/09/2009.

D) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition the effect, operation and implementation of the impugned final seniority list of the cadre of Deputy Collectors dated 31/12/2020 (Annex. H) prepared & published by Resp. No. 1 may kindly be stayed and the Resp. No. 1 may kindly be restrained from effecting any promotions on the basis of the said list.

E) The cost of this Writ Petition be awarded to the petitioner.

F) Any other appropriate relief as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court be granted in favour of the petitioner.

Transfer Application No.2/2021:-

A) Writ Petition may kindly be allowed.

B) The impugned Final Seniority Lists published by R-1 vide Circular dated 31.12.2020 at Exh. 'E' may kindly be quashed and set aside, by directing to prepare the Seniority Lists strictly in tune with the provisions of Rule 4 read with Rule 13 and Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Deputy Collectors (Recruitment, Fixation of Seniority & Confirmation) Rules, 1977 at Exh. 'B' hereto.

C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, execution & implementation of the impugned Seniority