907-WP.4980.2021

Page 1 of 3

J.V.Salunke,PS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4980 OF 2021

Smt. Manisha Jamdade and Ors. }

Petitioners

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

}

Respondents

Mr. Abhijeet Desai i/b. Desai Legal for the petitioners.

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. B. V.

Samant, AGP for State.

Mr.

N.

V.

Bandiwadekar

i/b.

Ms.

Ashwini

N.

Bandiwadekar for the applicant in IAST/14800/2022.

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. &

M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE:

AUGUST 25 2022

P.C.:

1.

The petitioners before this Court are admittedly State

Government

employees.

They

have

invoked

the

writ

jurisdiction of this Court feeling aggrieved by the inaction of

the respondents to grant them promotion.

2.

An objection to the maintainability of the writ petition

has been raised by Mr. Samant, learned AGP appearing for the

respondents relying on our decision dated 4^th March 2022 in

Writ Petition No. 2270 of 2021 (Gaurav Ganesh Das Daga

and Ors. vs. Maharashtra Public Service Commission).

3.

After arguing the matter for some length, Mr. Desai,

learned advocate for the petitioners has left the matter to the

discretion of the Court. However, he submits that since the

907-WP.4980.2021

Page 2 of 3

J.V.Salunke,PS

writ petition was entertained by the coordinate Bench of this

Court and an order of status quo is in operation from 21^st

December 2021, such order may be continued for a

reasonable period to enable the petitioners seek relief from

the appropriate forum.

4.

This Court had no jurisdiction to receive and entertain

the writ petition, a fortiori, to grant interim relief in view of

the provisions contained in section 15 and section 19 of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The remedy of the

petitioners lay in approaching the Maharashtra Administrative

Tribunal and if at all the decision were adverse to their

interest, they could have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this

Court adhering to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1225.

However, approaching this Court directly without exhausting

the remedy before the Tribunal is impermissible in law. This

aspect of the matter has been dealt with in detail in the

decision in Gaurav Ganesh Das Daga (supra).

5.

The writ petition, not being maintainable, is dismissed.

No costs. The petitioners will be at liberty to approach the

Tribunal in accordance with law.

6.

Once the writ petition has been dismissed, there is no

question of granting any interim relief. It is well known that an

interim relief is granted only in aid of the principal/final relief.

When the principal/final relief cannot be granted on any

proceedings and the same stands terminated, the Court

cannot grant any interim relief. If any authority is required,

we may profitably refer to the decision of the Supreme Court

in State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal Rungta), AIR 1952 SC

907-WP.4980.2021

Page 3 of 3

J.V.Salunke,PS

12. We, therefore, see no reason to continue the interim relief

granted earlier. The prayer of Mr. Desai stands rejected.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

SALUNKE

J V

Digitally signed

by SALUNKE J V

Date: 2022.08.26

17:28:20 +0530