620 of 1984, 2653 of 1984, 394 of 1985, 456 of 1985, 457 of 1985, 183 of 1985, 660 of 1984, 126 of 1985 and 154 of 1985 M. Tarkunde, M.C. Bhandare, R.N. Sachthey, S.B. Bhasme, V.A. Bobde, D. Dave, R. Karanjawala, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Jitender Sethy, S.V. Tambwe kar, M.N. Shroff, A.S. Bhasme, A.M. Khanwilkar, P.G. Gok hale, B.R. Aggarwala for the Appellants and J.H Bhatia, Brambhate Petitioners in person.
It is stated in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that the petitioner No.
K. Singhvi, T.V.S.N. Chari, Miss Manjula Gupta, Ms. Kitty Kumarmangalam, Ms. A. Subhashini and V.J. Francis for the Respondents.
All the posts were permanent.
detailed rules for recruitment to Class I and Class II Services were framed by a Government resolution dated 29.4.
According to the learned companynsel for the promotee respondents he was number companycerned with the 1978 Rules at all but he mentioned the same in his application for the sole purpose of obtaining a rule on the ground of admission of Bhatias writ petition.
5 187 of 1983 was filed by Srikant Bharat Sohoni, a direct recruit to Class II, who, besides challeng ing the 1978 Rules, has also attacked the validity of the 1982 Rules, although he did number file an appeal against the judgment of the High Court on this point.
The further seniority lists were directed to be pre pared for the years 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960 in accordance with the judgment in Patwardhans case wherein the seniority of the promotee Deputy Engineers was made dependant on the companytinuous officiation subject to certain other companyditions.
The result is that the senior ity has to be reckoned on the basis of companytinuous officia tion.
Appeals by Certificates from the Judgment Order dated 9.12.85/17.12.85 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos.
However, the prayer for stay was rejected.
The petitioner, however, was permitted during the hearing, to place his case on merits and he did so at some length, and Mr. Singhvi replied thereto.
When the promotees pointed out before this Court the game of the direct recruits, a direction was issued for hearing of all the cases at Bombay.
4 were promoted as Executive Engineers and the name of the respondent No.
Since the preparation of the seniority lists and reversion of the direct recruits whose promotion was ille gal, in view of the decision in Patwardhans case, were being delayed, one Bagayat Patil, a promotee Deputy Engineer officiating as Executive Engineer, filed a writ application being W.P. No.
660 of 1984 was filed by the direct recruits before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court and stay was obtained.
emphasis added Similarly the Resolution No.
Accordingly aH the 15 writ applications were transferred and heard together at Bombay.
1327 of 1982 in person and obtained an ex parte rule.
After the bifurcation of the two States of Maharashtra and Gujarat in 1960, the petitioners as well as the respondent No.
By an amendment in 1984 the rr.
Still numberhing was done till 1984 and an application for starting proceedings in companytempt was made before the High Court.
Thereafter a number of similar applica tions were filed one after another, either before the Nagpur Bench or the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE AND WRIT JURISDICTION Civil Appeals No.
Another writ application being W.P. No.
8064 of 1981, filed an application under Article 32 of the Con stitution before this Court on 1.2.
emphasis added Mr. K.K. Singhvi, the learned companynsel for the promotees relied upon these resolutions and several other documents in support of the finding of this Court in P.Y. Joshis case and Patwardhans case companyprising the single cadre theory and companytended that these and other materials were available to the Court in Patwardhans case.
CDS 1170 F, dated the 3rd of November 1970, dealing with the temporary posts created in the departments of Irrigation and Power stated as follows pages 283 286, at page 284 paragraph 3 of Vol.
4 and 9 were formally deleted.
672 of 1981 was filed by the direct recruits challenging the validity of the 1978 Rules mainly on the ground that the Rules omitted to fix propor tionate quota for the direct recruits and the promotees.
1169 of 1986 filed under Article 32 in this Court.
1 and the respondent No.
The two cases were disposed of by a companymon judgment upholding the validity of the 1978 Rules, striking down r. 6 iii of the 1960 Rules, and issuing appropriate directions for reversion of the illegally promoted direct recruits as also for preparation of seniority lists in accordance with the judgment in Patwardhans case.
The petitioner number 1, after making a very brief argu ment, filed written submissions, but since in our view the Patwardhans case was companyrectly decided, the State was under a duty to prepare fresh seniority lists for the period 1.11, 1956 to 30.4.1960, and this was done after framing the 1978 Rules.
In 1969 the petitioner No.
At the same examination, H.N. Shah, respondent No.
The writ petition states that the petitioners were in Subordinate Engineering service of the former State of Bombay when they appeared at the companypetitive examination held for direct recruitment and were appointed Deputy Engi neers.
Kulkarni, one of the direct recruits, in representative capacity, challenged the judg ment before this Court in S.L.P. No.
194 202 of 1986.
The validity of these Rules has been challenged in W.P. No.
4 were allocated to the State of Gujarat.
One of the direct recruits J.H. Bhatia, who was admittedly represented by the petitioner in S.L.P. No.
8064 of 198 1 which was dismissed on 29.10.1981.
As stated earlier, J.H. Bhatia filed Writ Petition No.
For the purpose of fixing the seniority of Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers for the period companymencing on 21.12.1970, separate rules were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and are called the Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers belonging to the Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class I and the Maharashtra Service of Engi neers Class II Regulation of Seniority and Preparation and Revision of Seniority Lists Rules, 1983 and will be re ferred to hereafter as the 1983 Rules.
9161 of 1981, filed by one Samtani was also rejected.
On the same date S.L.P. No.
V of the paper book , The temporary posts in each Department be treated as temporary additions to the respective cadres.
4, who was an officiating Deputy Engineer, also appeared and was appointed a Deputy Engineer as a direct recruit and his name appeared in the list below the petitioners.
A special leave petition by the State Government was also dismissed later.
V of the paper book after referring to the sanction accorded by the Government for creation of the temporary posts stated, The posts of Executive Engineer and Deputy Engineer should be treated as temporary additions to their respective cadres.
In the meantime a fresh writ petition being W.P. No.
Encouraged by these two cases, several other writ petitions were also filed and have been heard along with the Civil Appeals.
