Reservation Act 2004 11 By an interim order dated 1 April 2016, the Tribunal directed that the decision of the government would be subject to the outcome of the OA pending before it.
However, relying upon a circular dated 27 October 2008 of the General Administration Department 4, the name of the first respondent was recommended on 7 January 2011.
7 Essentially, the case of the appellant is that in the seniority list of DDTPs, he ranked senior to the first respondent.
The judgment of the Tribunal was stayed by the Bombay High Court on 20 March 2015.
Soon thereafter, on 2 April 2016, the GAD Establishment Board I companyducted a meeting where the first respondent was recommended for promotion to the post of DTP.
9291 of 2016 13 On 12 December 2017, when the Special Leave Petition was heard, this Court passed the following order Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior companynsel appearing for the petitioner, points out that though the issue of catch up was raised before the High Court, the same has number been companysidered.
On 2 July 2013, by virtue of a Government 1 MPSC 2 DDTP 3 JDTP 4 GAD Resolution5 dated 29 December 2012, the cadre strength of JDTP was enhanced to eight posts, of which five posts were meant for the open category while three posts were reserved.
The review petitions were instituted before the High Court following an order of a two judge Bench of this Court dated 12 December 2017.
The Special Leave Petitions were accordingly disposed of.
After the Additional Welfare Commissioner passed a fresh order, writ proceedings were initiated before the High Court.
The appellant moved a Miscellaneous Application on 22 November 2018 by way of abundant caution, for seeking a clarification of the order dated 12 December 2017.
The review petitions, as stated earlier, were dismissed on 21 March 2018.
Finding that there was numberreason to review the earlier judgment, companysistent with the settled parameters governing the exercise of that jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed the review petitions on 21 March 2018.
14041 43 of 2018 were filed against the judgment in the writ petitions.
8769 71 of 2018 was filed against the judgment in review SLP C Nos.
Granting permission, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
The State government challenged the decision of the Tribunal 13.
The appellant sought a clarification to the effect that upon the disposal of the review petitions by the High Court, it would be open to challenge the order in review as well as the original order before this Court.
The Miscellaneous Application was instituted on 22 November 2018.
This Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn, recording the submission of the appellant that he wishes to move the Additional Welfare Commissioner for companyrection of the order.
Shortly before that date, the State government promoted the first respondent to the post of DTP on 30 April 2016.
15 MA Nos.
The reason was the pendency of Writ Petition 8452 of 2004 before the Bombay High Court where there was a challenge to the Reservation Act 2004.
The appellant was promoted as Deputy Director of Town Planning 2 on 1 November 2003, by a numberination through the MPSC.
14 SLP C Nos.
The Tribunal by its judgment dated 2 May 2016 allowed the OA.
In a writ petition challenging the interim order of the Tribunal, the High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the pending OA by 30 April 2016 the post of DDTP was due to fall vacant on the retirement of the incumbent on 30 April 2016 .
By the Miscellaneous Applications, the appellant has sought a clarification of the order dated 12 December 2017 so as to seek specific permission from this Court to move afresh if the review were to fail before the High Court.
This authority is directly on the point in issue.
Significantly, in the case of the appellant as well, the reason why the promotion is treated as ad hoc is also the pendency of Writ Petition 8452 of 2004.
3 The original petitioner before the High Court is in appeal.
By its judgment dated 16 November 2017, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the decision of the Tribunal.
21 One of the members of the earlier Bench, Honble Mr Justice Kurian Joseph, was due to demit office on 29 November 2018.
12 Writ Petition No.
2 The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, speaking through a Division Bench, dismissed three review petitions seeking a review of its judgment dated 16 November 2017.
In terms of the liberty granted by this Court, the appellant moved the High Court in review.
Special Leave Petitions against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the Writ Petition 39 are pending adjudication before this Court.
One of the grounds of challenge was that the Additional Welfare Commissioner had referred to the appellant as deceased.
269 of 201.
Indeed, the order of promotion dated 2 July 2013 by which the appellant was promoted to the post of JDTP also states that the promotion is ad hoc.
The Tribunal, by its order dated 28 November 2014 struck down the Reservation Act, 2004 and the GR dated 25 May 2004.
12 The first respondent instituted proceedings 12 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court to challenge the decisions of the Tribunal.
On 2 July 2013, the appellant was promoted to the post of JDTP.
On 18 April 2016, the Tribunal companycluded the hearing and, while reserving the judgment, directed the case to be posted for pronouncement of judgment on 2 May 2016.
Though the first respondent belongs to a Scheduled Caste, he was promoted on an ad hoc basis to the post of JDTP on 11 August 2011.
No liberty was granted to file a fresh Special Leave Petition thereafter.
The appellant moved this Court in proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution to assail the decision of the High Court.
The appellant stood at serial number3 and the first respondent stood at serial number9 1 June 2014 A letter was issued for the provisional seniority list of JDTPs as on 1 January 2014 on the basis of date of appointment on present post 28 August 2014 5 GR A circular was issued for the final seniority list of JDTPs as on 1 January 2014 on the basis of date of appointment on present post 15 January 2016 A circular was issued for final seniority list of JDTPs as on 1 January 2015 on the basis of date of regular appointment regularized date of promotion 8 March 2016 In response to a query under the Right to Information Act 2005, the appellant was informed that the promotion of the first respondent would be regularized with the companycurrence of GAD and with the approval of the MPSC in future and 30 April 2016 The incumbent in the post of Director of Town Planning 6 was due to retire upon which the post would fall vacant.
It quashed the seniority list dated 15 January 2016 of JDTPs and issued directions for the preparation of a fresh seniority list by deciding the date of regular promotion of the first respondent, whereupon a fresh promotion order was directed to be issued to the post of DTP.
8860 of 2016 was instituted against the judgment of the Tribunal in OA No.
The State of Maharashtra has filed a Special Leave Petition which is pending before this Court.
The submissions of the appellant have been companyntered by urging that the reason why the promotion of the first respondent has been treated as ad hoc is because there was a challenge pending to the Reservation Act 2004 at the material time before the Tribunal High Court in Writ Petition 8452 of 2004.
4 The appellant as well as the first respondent are officers in the service of the Government of Maharashtra.
Director of Town 1.11.2003 3.8.2006 Planning DDTP Joint Director of Town 2.7.2013 11.8.2011 Planning JDTP Director of Town Planning Eligible to be promoted on Promoted on 30.4.2016 DTP, MS 3.7.2016 subject to outcome of O.A. No.269/2016.
On 28 November 2018, numberice was issued on the Miscellaneous Applications.
On 28 November 2018, a Bench companysisting of Honble Mr Justice Kurian Joseph and one of us Honble Mr Justice Hemant Gupta issued numberice on the Miscellaneous Application.
It is clear therefore that there was numberhing to indicate that the companyrt had granted permission to move this Court afresh against the original order after the review was decided.
6 In the promotional cadre of Joint Director of Town Planning 3, there were two posts, one for open category candidates and the second for reservation on roster points.
13 Writ Petition No.
14 During the pendency of these proceedings, the appellant has instituted Miscellaneous Applications15 along with an interlocutory application16.
74 A policy circular was issued by the State of Maharashtra on 1 April 2008 to all departments directing that promotions will be subject to the outcome of the decision in the above Writ Petition.
8859 of 2016 was instituted to challenge the order of the Tribunal companydoning delay Writ Petition No.
The first respondent was promoted as DDTP on 3 August 2006.
8 After lodging an objection to the seniority list dated 15 January 2016, the appellant filed an Original Application 7 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal8.
The High Court held that by the earlier order of this Court, liberty was reserved only to move the Additional Welfare Commissioner to companyrect a typographical error in appeal.
The appellant belongs to the open category while the first respondent belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
5 The appellant joined service as a Planning Assistant in the Government of Maharashtra on 6 May 1983.
On 7 January 2011, the post of JDTP was vacant for a Scheduled Tribe candidate under the roster.
25 In Abhishek Malviya v Additional Welfare Commissioner20, a Special Leave Petition was filed before this Court against an order of the Additional Welfare Commissioner in a matter involving a claim for companypensation arising out of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster.
The first respondent was promoted as JDTP on 11 August 2011 while the appellant was promoted later on 2 July 2013.
8769 8771 OF 2018 1 Leave granted.
The chart with relevant details regarding their appointments and promotions in the service of the state is provided thus POSTING SUDHAKAR NANGNURE NORESHWAR SHENDE OPEN CATEGORY SC Planning Assistant 6.5.1983 Assistant Town Planner 6.5.1988 Town Planner 1.7.1992 1.7.1992 Dy.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court in review and the original judgment in the writ petitions, the appellant moved this Court afresh under Article 136 of the Constitution14.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. CIVIL APPEAL Nos 2468 2470 OF 2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL Nos.
Both the appellant and the first respondent were selected for the post of Town Planner on 1 July 1992, in the companyrse of a process initiated by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission 1.
