The absorbed employees from the Revenue Department might be entitled for appropriate placements in the seniority list of Clerks and Senior Clerks in the Sales Tax Department but, however, it cannot be ignored that such absorbed employees came to be promoted as STIs much after the respondent No.
To vindicate their grievances in respect of their erroneous placement in the seniority list issued on 12th April, 1989, two direct recruits petitioned the State of Maharashtra bearing Writ Petition No.
The direct recruits were number satisfied with this seniority list prepared and issued on 12th April, 1989 as according to them, the same was prepared in companytravention of the Statutory Rules 1971, framed by the State of Maharashtra in the years 1971, 1982 and 1988.
The impugned judgment principally proceeded on the footing that the companytentions raised by the appellants were barred by principle of res judicata in view of the earlier decision of the MAT, Bombay Bench rendered on 3rd September, 1992 whereunder the seniority list dated April 12,1989 came to be quashed.
2 to 36 who were absorbed personnel and who were promoted as the Sales Tax Inspectors after 1981 would be senior to those STIs like the first respon dent and other similarly situated persons who were promoted after selec tion prior to September, 1980.
Earlier, the work of recovery of sale tax was entrusted to the Revenue Department of the Government of Maharashtra.
The MAT gave the findings on merits in order to avoid the order of remand in the event the higher companyrt companyes to the companyclusion that the companytentions raised by the appellants in.
4 The Government had taken numberactive steps in the direction of direct recruitment.
The MAT then directed companycerned authority to prepare a fresh seniority list in terms of directions companytained in its order dated September 3, 1992.
2000 1 SCR 166 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. KURDUKAR, J. Civil Appeal No, 7717 Of 1994.
The first respondent and other similarly situated persons were selected by the Select Committee and came to be promoted to the STIs from October 15,1976 onwards.
7717 of 1994 is filed by the Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sangathan, the appellant for short the promotees assailing the legality and companyrect ness of the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 1994 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in Original Applica tion No.
The post of Sales Tax Inspector is a selection post.
7717 of 1994.
The direct recruits were also made parties to this O.A. MAT, Bombay Bench, vide its impugned Judgment dated 23rd March, 1994 dismissing the O.A. It is against this order passed by MAT, Bombay Bench, the appellants have filed this CM Appeal No.
2 to 36 who were selected sub sequently.
To be more precise, the dispute relates to the fixation of seniority of promotees and direct recruits for the block 1991 to 31st December, 1987.
The appellants herein and also the respondents 2 to 36 companytested the claim of the first respondent on the ground that in view of the decision of the Government to absorb the Senior Clerks Aval Karkuns, Aval Karkuns, Entertainment Duty Inspectors etc.
Following the directions of the Bombay High Court in its order dated 23rd February, 1989, a fresh seniority list was prepared and issued on 12th April, 1989.
Consistent with these findings, the MAT companycluded thus It has number been explained by the respondents whether the seniority list published by the Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax, vide his letter dated 12th April, 1989 is in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government vide Government letter dated 2nd September, 1989.
This writ petition was filed by the first respondent Vasant Krishnaji Chavan, the Sales Tax Inspector for short STI on behalf of himself and other similarly situated STIs who were promoted to the posts of STIs prior to September 1, 1980.
Respondents 2 to 36 who were absorbed from the Revenue Department in the Sales Tax Department in the cadre of Senior Clerk were also promoted to the post of Sales Tax Inspectors in August, 1981.
All these companytentions issues were companycluded number only by the MAT Bombay Bench, but by this Court also in SLP C No CC No.
2 to 36 in this appeal.
6316 of 1997 is filed by the State of Maharashtra impugning the judgment and order dated 23rd February, 1989 rendered by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.
The promotions to the post of STIs be governed by the seniority subject to other rifles, regulations and government orders.
The promotions given to the promotees in excess of their quota were either fortuitous fid hoc tem porary or stop gap arrangement and, therefore, numberwithstanding that such promotees were officiating for long period, they will have to be pushed down in the seniority list below the direct recruits for the respective year s of recruitment.
The seniority list of the Senior Clerks of Sales Tax Department as on September 1, 1980 was prepared and published on May 15, 1982 by the Government of Maharashtra wherein respondents 2 to 36 herein were included.
2 to 36 were selected by the Select Committee and came to be promoted in the year 1981 and thereafter.
2 to 36 were selected by the Select Committee and came to be promoted in 1981 and thereafter.
6316 of 1997 This Civil Appeal by Special Leave is filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the legality and companyrectness of the judgment and order dated February 23,1989 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.
4852 of 1989 was filed by two direct recruits against the State of Maharashtra, the Commissioner of Sales Tax and Rajak Daud Mapari who was a promotee.
Prior to the said date, the post of Clerk was divided into Junior Clerk and Senior Clerk.
To this writ petition, State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Sales Tax Maharashtra State along with other 35 respondents were arrayed as respondents.
Promotion to the STI from the cadre of Clerk was made from the suitable candidates on the basis of the certificate issued by the Select Committee about his suitability.
The companytention raised on behalf of the promotees appellants is that the quota rule was broken down and as a result thereof, the promotees were required to be appointed in view of the exigencies of service and if so appointed, their promotions cannot be termed as for tuitous temporary ad hoc and that they will be entitled to earn the seniority and placement in the impugned seniority list from the date they were so promoted and working as STIs.
The SLP is dismissed on merits, 12, In view of the decision of the MAT dated 3rd September, 1992 and on SLP companyfirmed by this Court on 10th December, 1992, a fresh seniority list was issued on 28th December, 1992 and was finalised on 29th October, 1993.
It was, therefore, an error on the part of the Government to ignore the date of selection and appointment of the first respondent and other similarly situated employees to the post of STIs and treat them as junior to respondent Nos.
O.A. No.
4852 of 1989 to which some of the promotees were also impleaded as respondents.
2742 of 1987 challenging the seniority list of the STIs in Bombay High Court wherein the direct recruits were also arrayed as respondents.
As against this, the companytention raised on behalf of the direct recruits was that the promotees who were promoted appointed in the vacancies falling in the quota of direct recruits 60 , such promotions of the promotees were fortuitous in excess of their quota and numberwithstanding that they were so appointed and working as STIs in the vacancies reserved for direct recruits as per the quota rule, they cannot get the seniority from the date of promotion or officiation and that they will get their placement in the seniority list in accordance with their quota i.e. 40 and until they are accommodated in their quota 40 as regular promotees, their date of promotion or officiation will number be companynted for the purposes of fixing their seniority vis a vis direct recruits.
It was, therefore, necessary to prepare a companymon seniority list of the Clerk Senior Clerks of the Sales Tax Department as well as the ab sorbed employees from the Revenue Department.
690 A of 1993 before the MAT, Bombay Bench.
To this O.A., four more promotees got themselves impleaded as interveners and filed their companynter affidavit opposing the said T.P. The companytention raised on behalf of direct recruits was that the promo tions given to the promotees in excess of their quota as laid down in the Rules 1971 be treated as fortuitous beyond their prescribed quota.
2742 of 1987.
The appellants promotees who were aggrieved by the said seniority list filed O.A. No.
7 of 1997 and I.A. No.
As stated earlier, the first respondent and other similarly situated persons were promoted between 1976 and 1980 whereas respondent Nos.
The quota rule was never broken down.
The total number of Clerks and Senior Clerks working in the Sales Tax Department came to be promoted from October 15, 1976, were about 200 in number.
1 and other similarly situated persons were selected by the Select Committee and came to be promoted between 1976 and 1980 whereas the respondent Nos.
It is this provisional seniority list which was challenged by the first respondent on behalf of himself and similarly situated STIs who were promoted between 1976 and 1980.
The first respondent pleaded that on the date when the respondents 2 to 36 were absorbed, the first respondent and other similarly situated persons were already promoted as STIs and, therefore, the provisional seniority list was number only erroneous but also violative of Ar ticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
690 A of 1993 for short O.A. This O.A. was filed by the promotees challenging the companyrectness of the final seniority list numberified and published on 28th December, 1992 and amended on 29th October, 1993.
These employees are the respondents at serial Nos.
The Government of Maharashtra vide their Resolutions passed in 1976 and 1978 decided to transfer the said work to the Sales Tax Department and accordingly in the year 1980, they implemented the said decision.
The posts of STIs are filled up by promotion as well as numberination in equal ratio.
These 36 employees who were absorbed in the Sales Tax Department were holding the posts of Senior Clerk Aval Karkun, Aval Karkun, Entertain ment Duty Inspectors etc, in the Revenue Department and since their scale was found to be equivalent to the Senior Clerk in the Sales Tax Depart ment, they were absorbed in the cadre of Senior Clerk in the Sales Tax Department.
1 and other similarly situated persons were promoted.
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench for short MAT dismissed the O.A. principally on the ground that the companytentions raised therein are barred by principles of res judicata as well as companystructive res judicata.
on the equivalent posts in the cadre of Senior Clerk in the Sales Tax Department, they are entitled to reckon their seniority in the parent department as they were absorbed along with their seniority.
The number of posts for direct recruits falling vacant were 704 for the said block.
The respondents herein the writ petitioners and other similarly situated clerks and Senior Clerks who were working in the Sales Tax Department were promoted from October 15, 1976 onwards to the posts of STIs against regular vacancies.
The MAT also companysidered in its impugned judgment the merits of the claim set up by the appellants and while negating the same on merits issued certain directions companytained in para graph 50 thereof.
The first proceeding in point of time was filed by the promotees bearing Writ petition No.
Civil Appeal No.
8 of 1998 are allowed.
The challenge in this writ petition was to the provisional seniority list of STIs as on April 1, 1984 issued by the Government of Maharashtra on April 28, 1987.
822 of 1991 Writ Petition No.
Resultantly, 462 posts in the Revenue Department for the recovery of sale tax dues were abolished and equal number of posts were created on the establishment of Sales Tax Department.
690 A of 1993.
Civil Appeal No.
However, with a view to avoid the remand, in case the higher companyrts hold that the O.A. is number barred by the principles of res judicata or companystructive res judicata, the MAT disposed of the companytroversy raised in O.A. on merits too.
These two civil appeals in strict sense cannot be said to be companynected involving identical questions of inter se seniority save and except that they relate to the fixation of seniority of the Sales Tax Inspectors in their cadre in the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra.
The Bombay High Court vide its judgment and order dated 23rd February, 1989 quashed the seniority list and directed the companycerned authority to prepare a fresh seniority list.
