The jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals is determined by the location of the cause of action, necessitating respect for territorial boundaries as outlined in governing statutes.

JUDGMENT :

NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.

1. By the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners raised challenge to the order dated 02.07.2024 (for short, ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Aurangabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) not allowing the Petitioners to sue/prosecute the Original Application No. 626 of 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘O.A.’) jointly.

2. The Petitioners are the Government Servants and working as the Junior Engineers (non-Gazetted) in various divisions of the Water Resources Department across the State of Maharashtra. The Respondent No.1 is the State, the Respondent No.2 is the Chairman-cum-Executive Director of the Selection Committee (State Level) for Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation and Other Respondents are also the Government Servants like the Petitioners. The Respondent No.1 – State published the provisional seniority list on 20.09.2023 and published the final seniority list on 16.04.2024 of the cadre to which the Petitioners and Respondent Nos.3 to 7 belong. In the final seniority list, the names of Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are shown above the names of Petitioners and therefore, the above referred O.A. came to be filed before the learned Tribunal with Misc. Application No.230/2024 for permission to sue jointly. The said Application was heard by the learned Tribunal and by the impugned order, partly allowed the Application to the extent of the Applicants who are residing at the places within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad and rejected the Application to the extent of the Applicants (Petitioners) who are not residing at the places within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad.

3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners that, the cause of action arose across the State of Maharashtra as the final seniority list was of the Government servants, who were working in the Water Resources/Irrigation Department across the State of Maharashtra. He submitted that, the learned Tribunal erred in partly rejecting the Application. He further submitted that, the similar issue has been dealt with by this Court in Writ Petition No.3228 of 2020 by order dated 21.09.2020 and places reliance on the same in support of the Petition. He submitted that, the Petition be allowed in terms of prayer clauses.

4. It is submitted by the learned Addl. G.P. appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that, as some of the Petitioners are not residing within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals Bench at Aurangabad, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order and no interference is warranted.

5. Heard all the sides. Perused the papers on record.

6. According to the Petitioners, Misc. Application No.230/2024 in the O.A. No.626/2024 was filed to sue jointly since the Petitioners were aggrieved by the seniority list published by the Respondent No.1 at State level and cause espoused in the O.A. can be heard and decided by the common order. Further, according to the Petitioners, they would be benefited and multiplicity of litigation could be avoided, if the O.A. was heard and decided by common order and so the Misc. Application was filed to sue jointly. It is further the contention of the Petitioners that, to save the time and money of both the sides as well as of the adjudicatory machinery, the Application to sue jointly was filed. According to the Petitioners, since they were appointed through the same advertisement and they were aggrieved by one and the same seniority list which was being published contrary to the advertisement and seniority rules and they were having common interest,