By order dated 17.9.2007, a Bench of this Court passed the following order Government would be entitled to fill in the vacancies subject to the result of the special leave petition.
According to the appellants, only if these companyditions are fulfilled, he was to be appointed on regular basis to a cadre post in the cadre of Dy.
The same was allowed by companydoning the delay in approaching the Tribunal and it was directed that the official respondents were to redetermine his year of allotment as 1987 which was later companyrected to be 1988 .
In any event, there was number even an application for companydonation of delay in moving the Tribunal.
SPs who were eligible as on 1.1.1990 including respondent No.4.
The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. inter alia holding that the O.A. was barred by time and suffered from delay and laches as the respondent No.4 made a representation for the first time on 27.7.1994, much after his alleged claim for the year of allotment being 1988.
This was done under threat of companytempt.
8.3.1992.
The High Court disposed of the companytempt petition as number pressed since the judgment had been companyplied with.
In the light of the above, the Respondents shall determined the Petitioners seniority treating his year of allotment as 1987 and that the Petitioner was entitled to be promoted in the vacancies occurring in the year 1988 itself.
Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the writ petitions filed by Gulabrao Dharmu Pol, respondent No.4 in appeal relating to SLP C No.12364/2006 and Mr. Suresh A. Kakkar, respondent No.4 in appeal relating to SLP C No.1178/2007.
On 9.2.1993, he and other promotees of his batch were companyfirmed in the IPS w.e.f.
On 8.3.1991, respondent No.4 was promoted to IPS along with seven others, including Shri S.A. Khopde.
Subsequently, another representation was made in January, 1995.
Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior companynsel for the appellants, primarily challenged the judgment of the High Court on the ground that the appellants who would be directly affected by the order of the High Court were number parties before the High Court.
Respondent No.4 did number press his claim for companysideration for promotion in the year 1988 itself.
A writ petition was filed by respondent No.4 challenging the judgments of the Tribunal.
A companytempt petition C.P.No.10/2006 was filed by respondent No.4 and the Union of India implemented the judgment of the High Court without preparing any seniority list for the year 1988 by changing his year of allotment from 1987 to 1984 and placing him above the appellants who were direct recruits of the year 1985.
1776 OF 2008 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.12364/2006 W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The High Court companyld number have directed that the official respondents were to determine the seniority of respondent No.4 treating his year of allotment as 1988 and he was entitled to be promoted in the vacancies occurring in the year 1988.
The Union of India and the Union Public Service Commission in short, UPSC resisted the claim of respondent No.4.
They were given 1987 as the year of allotment in the IPS.
The same reads as follows Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, especially in the light of the above two Supreme Court Judgments, in Union of India and Others V s. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah 1997 Supreme Court Cases L S 41, and Devendra Narayan Singh and Others V s. State of Bihar and Others AIR 1997 SC 595, we set aside both the aforesaid orders of Central Administrative Tribunal and we hold that in the case of the petitioner, the year of allotment would be 1987 and he is eligible for being companysidered for promotion in the vacancies occurring in the year 1988.
They all became juniors to the appellants who were appointed at least six years earlier.
By order dated 13.4.1989, respondent No.4 was companyfirmed as DSP w.e.f.
On 27.7.1994, a representation was made by respondent No.4 to treat 1984 as the year of allotment by treating him as having been appointed in the year 1988 iteself.
A stale claim purportedly relating to 1988 was raised for the first time in 1994.
It was held that if his claims were to be allowed, it would unsettle the settled position for about eight years.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1777 OF 2008 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.1178/2007 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
As the appellants were number parties before the High Court, after obtaining permission to file S.L.P., the Special Leave Petitions were filed.
On 26.2.1990, the Selection Committee met and companysidered the candidates who were substantive Dy.
A brief reference to the factual position would suffice.
The review petition filed by respondent No.4 was also dismissed.
3.8.1981 in terms of the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra Order dated 1.2.1982.
The position as obtaining in the appeal relating to S.L.P. C No.12364/2006 is numbered as the factual scenario is companymon to both the appeals.
The appellants were directly recruited to the Indian Police Service in short IPS and allocated to the State of Maharashtra with the allotment year as 1985.
O.A.No.807/1996 was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in short, the Tribunal praying for appropriate year of allotment in the IPS on the ground that though he was eligible, he was number companysidered for the vacancies of 1988.
On 18.4.1979, respondent No.4 was appointed as trainee Deputy Superintendent of Police by the Government of Maharashtra subject to companypletion of training, practical training and passing of tests in certain subjects.
SP ACP on regular basis w.e.f.
