{"id":29393,"date":"2000-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000"},"modified":"2017-05-16T17:23:33","modified_gmt":"2017-05-16T11:53:33","slug":"maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000","title":{"rendered":"Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari … vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari … vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2000<\/div>\n
Bench: S.P. Kurdukar, S.S.M. Quadri<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7717 of 1994\n\nPETITIONER:\nMAHARASHTRA VIKRIKAR KARAMCHARI SANGATHAN\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/01\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.P. KURDUKAR & S.S.M. QUADRI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2000 (1) SCR 166<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
S.P. KURDUKAR, J. Civil Appeal No, 7717 Of 1994.\n<\/p>\n
This is a third round of litigation whereby a challenge to the seniority
\nlist of the Sales Tax Inspectors in the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra,
\nwas made by promotees\/departmental candidates (for short ‘the promotees)
\nagainst the direct recruits in respect of their placements in the seniority
\nlist. These two civil appeals in strict sense cannot be said to be
\nconnected involving identical questions of inter se seniority save and
\nexcept that they relate to the fixation of seniority of the Sales Tax
\nInspectors in their cadre in the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra. Civil
\nAppeal No. 7717 of 1994 is filed by the Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari
\nSangathan, the appellant (for short ‘the promotees’) assailing the legality
\nand correct-ness of the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 1994 passed by
\nthe Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in Original Applica-
\ntion No. 690-A of 1993 (for short ‘O.A.’)- This O.A. was filed by the
\npromotees challenging the correctness of the final seniority list notified
\nand published on 28th December, 1992 and amended on 29th October, 1993.
\nThis seniority list of Sales Tax Inspectors came to be prepared as on 31st
\nof December, 1987. To be more precise, the dispute relates to the fixation
\nof seniority of promotees and direct recruits for the block 1991 to 31st
\nDecember, 1987. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench (for
\nshort ‘MAT) dismissed the O.A. principally on the ground that the
\ncontentions raised therein are barred by principles of res-judicata as well
\nas constructive res-judicata. However, with a view to avoid the remand, in
\ncase the higher courts hold that the O.A. is not barred by the principles
\nof res-judicata or constructive res- judicata, the MAT disposed of the
\ncontroversy raised in O.A. on merits too.\n<\/p>\n
2, Civil Appeal No. 6316 of 1997 is filed by the State of Maharashtra
\nimpugning the judgment and order dated 23rd February, 1989 rendered by the
\nHigh Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2742 of 1987. The dispute in this
\ncivil appeal pertains to the determination of seniority of Sales Tax
\nInspectors who were promoted (on absorption) from two different sources,
\nnamely, Revenue Department and Sales Tax Department, Bombay. The dispute
\nthus in this civil appeal is confined to the inter-se seniority of
\npromotees from these two sources.\n<\/p>\n
3, We may first deal with Civil Appeal No. 7717 of 1994. The facts which
\nare necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated briefly as under
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
Prior to 6th September, 1971, the recruitment to the posts of Sales Tax
\nInspectors (for short ‘STIs’) was made through three sources, (1) by
\npromotion from clerks, (2) by transfer from other departments and (3) by
\ndirect recruitment Till this time, no quota was prescribed for these three
\ndifferent sources of recruitment. The seniority of all these three sets of
\nSTIs was determined pursuant to the general provisions relating to
\nseniority contained in the government resolution dated July 29,1963.\n<\/p>\n
4.  For the first time, the State Government in exercise of powers
\nconferred by provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed
\nthe rules called Maharashtra Sales Tax Inspectors Recruitment Rules, 1971
\n(for short ‘Rules 1971’) which came into force w.e.f. September 6, 1971.
\nSuffice is to refer to Rule 2 thereof. It deals with the appointments to
\nthe posts of Sales Tax Inspectors from two sources, namely direct recruits
\nand by promotion in the ratio of 60:40 as far as practicable. (Emphasis
\nsup-plied).\n<\/p>\n
Rule 2 reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
2. Appointment to the posts of Sales Tax Inspectors shall be made either :\n<\/p>\n
(a) by promotion of suitable clerks in the Sales Tax Depart-ment, who have
\npassed at least Part ! of the Departmental Ex-amination prescribed for the
\nSales Tax Inspector or for the Higher Clerical staff in the Sales Tax
\nDepartment or who have been exempted from passing the Departmental
\nExamination prescribed for Sales Tax Inspectors or for the High Clerical
\nStaff.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the Clerks who have passed Part I of the Departmental
\nExamination for Sales Tax Inspector and who have been promoted to the posts
\nof Sales Tax Inspectors are required to pass Part II of the Departmental
\nExamination for Sales Tax Inspector also, according to the rules made in
\nthat behalf, failing which they shall be liable to be reverted.\n<\/p>\n
The ratio of persons appointed by promotion as provided above and by
\nnomination as provided below shall, as far as practicable, be 40:60. The
\nratio shall not apply to temporary vacancies not exceeding one year which
\nmay be filled by promotion. Such promo-tions shall, however, be treated as
\nstopgap promotions and will not entitle the promotees to seniority by
\nvirtue thereof.\n<\/p>\n
Note : In the period from the date on which these rules come into force to
\nthe date on which the results of the first Departmental Examination of
\nSales Tax Inspectors under the unified Departmen-tal Examination Rules are
\ndeclared, promotions made to the post of Sales Tax Inspector shall be
\npurely provisional and persons so promoted shall be required to pass the
\nprescribed Departmental Examination within the prescribed period from the
\ndate the Departmental Examination rules come into force, failing which they
\nshall be liable to be reverted :\n<\/p>\n
(b) by nomination, on the result of a competitive examination held by the
\nMaharashtra Public Service Commission, from among can-didates who –\n<\/p>\n
(i) possess a degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Law or Agriculture of a
\nrecognised University or any recognised equivalent qualifications;\n<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
(ii) have attained the age of 18 years and have not attained the age of 24
\nyears, on the first day of the month immediately following the month in
\nwhich the posts are advertised by the Commission;\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the upper age limit shall be relaxed upto 30 years in the
\ncase of persons serving in the Sales Tax Department.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter, the State of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred under
\nArticle 309 of the Constitution of India framed the Rules for regulating
\nthe seniority amongst government employees. The said Rules were called
\nMaharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982 (for short
\n‘Rules 1982’). These rules came into force w.e.f. June 21, 1982, Rule 4 is
\nrelevant in the present controversy and it reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
“4. General Principles of Seniority : (1) Subject to the other provisions
\nof these rules, the seniority of a Government servant in any post, cadre or
\nservice shall ordinarily be determined on the length of his continuous
\nservice there.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that, for the purpose of computing such service, any period of
\nabsence from the post, cadre or service due to leave, deputation for
\ntraining or otherwise or on foreign service or temporary officiation in any
\nother post shall be taken into account, if the competent authority
\ncertified that the Government servant concerned would have continued in the
\nsaid post cadre or service during such period, had he not proceeded on
\nleave or deputation Or been appointed temporarily to such other post.\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that, the service, if any, rendered by him as a result of
\na fortuitous appointment shall be excluded in computing the length of
\nservice and for the purposes of seniority he shall be deemed to have been
\nappointed to the post in the cadre of service on the date on which his
\nregular appointment is made in accordance with the provisions of the
\nrelevant recruitment rules.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub rule (1) :\n<\/p>\n
(a) the inter se seniority of direct recruits selected in one batch for
\nappointment to any post, cadre or service, shall be determined according to
\ntheir ranks in the order of preference arranged by the Commission,
\nSelection Board or in the case of recruitment by nomination directly made
\nby the competent authority, the said authority, as the case may be, if the
\nappointment is taken up by the person recruited within thirty days from the
\ndate of issue of the order of appointment or within such extended period as
\nthe competent authority may in its discretion allow.\n<\/p>\n
(b) the inter se seniority of Government servants promoted from a Select
\nList shall be in the same order in which their names appear in such Select
\nList. If the Select List is prepared in two parts, the first part,
\ncontaining the names of those selected unconditionally and the second part
\ncontaining the names of those selected provisionally. AH persons included
\nin the first part shall rank above those included in all second part.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that, if the order in which the names are arranged in the Select
\nList is changed following a subsequent review of it, the seniority of the
\nGovernment servants involved shall be re-arranged and determined afresh in
\nconformity with their revised ranks.\n<\/p>\n
(c) the seniority of a transferred Government servant vis-a-vis the
\nGovernment servant in the posts, cadre or service to which he is
\ntransferred shall be determined by the competent authority with due regard
\nto the class and pay scale of the post, cadre or service from which he is
\ntransferred, the length of his service therein and the circumstances
\nleading to his transfer.\n<\/p>\n
(3)    Where the dates of appointment in posts, cadre or service of any two
\nor more persons determined after assigning the deemed dates, if necessary,
\nare identical the person senior in age shall be considered as senior for
\nthe purpose of deter-mining the seniority.”\n<\/p>\n
Rule 3 contains several definitions and we are concerned with for a defini-
\ntions.\n<\/p>\n
3(D)”Deemed date” means the date assigned to a Government servant in
\naccordance with the provisions of Rub 5;\n<\/p>\n
3(E) “Direct recruit” means, in relation to any post, cadre or service, a
\nperson appointed by nomination thereto;\n<\/p>\n
3(F) “fortuitous appointment’ means a temporary appointment made pending a
\nregular appointment in accordance with the provisions of the relevant
\nrecruitment rules;\n<\/p>\n
3(H)Promotee” means, In relation to any post, cadre or service, a
\nGovernment servant appointed thereto by promotion from a lower post, cadre
\nor service;\n<\/p>\n
5, The State of Maharashtra again in exercise of its powers conferred by
\nArticle 309 of the Constitution of India carried out the amendments to the
\nRules 1982, We may reproduce the relevant amendments to Rules 4 and 6 which
\nread as under :\n<\/p>\n
“2, in Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority)
\nRules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the principle rules”, in sub-rule
\n(1) in the second proviso, after the words, ”a fortuitous appointment” the
\nfollowing shall be inserted, namely :-\n<\/p>\n
“except in a case where the competent authority certifies that, it was not
\nexpedient\/possible or practicable to make a regular ap-pointment strictly
\nin accordance with the ratio of recruitment as prescribed in the relevant
\nrecruitment rules, with the brief reason recorded therefor.”\n<\/p>\n
3.         xxx                 xxx               xxx<\/p>\n
4. In Rule 6 of the principle Rules, after the existing proviso, the
\nfollowing proviso shall be added, namely :-\n<\/p>\n
“provided further that, appointment shall not be deemed to be fortuitous if
\nthe authority competent to make appointment certified while preparing the
\nannual gradation list that the temporary appointment had to be made, as
\ncandidates for regular appointment by nomination or as the case may be,
\npersons fit for promotion from the lower cadre, were not available at all
\nor in adequate numbers.”\n<\/p>\n
6. This is how the relevant rules were holding the field when the impugned
\nseniority list as amended came to be published in the year 1992 and 1993,
\nIt is clear from the certificate of the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax
\ndated 21st February, 1992 (Ex.K) that from 6th September, 1971 to 31st
\nDecember, 1987, total 1750 posts of Sales Tax Inspectors became vacant.
\nUnder the Recruitment Rules, 1050 posts for the direct recruits were
\nrequired to be filled in accordance with-the ratio of 60:40. However,
\nduring the said period, only 346 direct recruits were available and they
\nwere appointed. Balance of 704 posts of Sales Tax Inspectors came to be
\nfilled by temporary promotions because no candidates were available for
\ndirect recruitment for the said posts. From this certificate, it is amply
\nclear that between 6th of September, 1971 and 31st December, 1987, the
\nquota rule was not observed and the departmental candidates came to be
\npromoted as Sales Tax Inspectors beyond their prescribed quota of 40%.
\nObviously, these promotions were treated by the Government of Maharashtra
\nas temporary promotions. The principle issue which needs to be considered
\nin this appeal is how to determine the seniority amongst the promotees and
\ndirect recruits who were promoted and appointed as STIs during this block.
\nThe contention raised on behalf of the promotees (appellants) is that the
\nquota rule was broken down and as a result thereof, the promotees were
\nrequired to be appointed in view of the exigencies of service and if so
\nappointed, their promotions cannot be termed as for-tuitous\/temporary\/ad
\nhoc and that they will be entitled to earn the seniority and placement in
\nthe impugned seniority list from the date they were so promoted and working
\nas STIs. As against this, the contention raised on behalf of the direct
\nrecruits was that the promotees who were promoted\/appointed in the
\nvacancies falling in the quota of direct recruits (60%), such promotions of
\nthe promotees were fortuitous in excess of their quota and notwithstanding
\nthat they were so appointed and working as STIs in the vacancies reserved
\nfor direct recruits as per the quota rule, they cannot get the seniority
\nfrom the date of promotion or officiation and that they will get their
\nplacement in the seniority list in accordance with their quota i.e. 40% and
\nuntil they are accommodated in their quota (40%) as regular promotees,
\ntheir date of promotion or officiation will not be counted for the purposes
\nof fixing their seniority vis-a-vis direct recruits. The quota rule was
\nnever broken down. The direct recruits further prayed that the present O.A.
\nis barred by principles of res judicata as also the constructive res
\njudicata by virtue of the judgment dated 3rd September, 1992 rendered by
\nMAT in T.P. No. 822 of 1991. The direct recruits, therefore, prayed that
\npresent O.A. has no substance and the same be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
7.  It would be necessary to refer to the earlier proceedings which were
\nfinally disposed of by the MAT, Bombay Bench, and this Court upheld the
\nsaid judgment while dismissing the SLP filed by promotees\/departmental
\ncandidates.\n<\/p>\n
8.  The first proceeding in point of time was filed by the promotees
\nbearing Writ petition No. 2742 of 1987 challenging the seniority list of
\nthe STIs in Bombay High Court wherein the direct recruits were also arrayed
\nas respondents. The Bombay High Court vide its judgment and order dated
\n23rd February, 1989 quashed the seniority list and directed the concerned
\nauthority to prepare a fresh seniority list.\n<\/p>\n
9.  Following the directions of the Bombay High Court in its order dated
\n23rd February, 1989, a fresh seniority list was prepared and issued on 12th
\nApril, 1989. The direct recruits were not satisfied with this seniority
\nlist prepared and issued on 12th April, 1989 as according to them, the same
\nwas prepared in contravention of the Statutory Rules 1971, framed by the
\nState of Maharashtra in the years 1971, 1982 and 1988. To vindicate their
\ngrievances in respect of their erroneous placement in the seniority list
\nissued on 12th April, 1989, two direct recruits petitioned the State of
\nMaharashtra bearing Writ Petition No. 4852 of 1989 to which some of the
\npromotees were also impleaded as respondents. Some similarly situated
\npromotees filed the intervention application which was allowed. Writ Peti-
\ntion No. 4852 of 1989 was then transferred to the MAT, Bombay Bench in view
\nof the constitution of the MAT. It came to be listed as T.P. No. 822 of
\n1991. The State of Maharashtra as well as the promotees filed their
\nresponses to the transferred petition. The State of Maharashtra pleaded
\nthat the seniority list issued on 12th April, 1989 was in accordance with
\nthe statutory rules and the promotions given to the promotees in excess of
\ntheir quota were required to be treated as fortuitous promotions and since
\nthey were not regularly appointed as STIs, they will be pushed down below
\nthe direct recruits for the respective unit years of appointments in
\naccordance with quota rule. According to the State of Maharashtra, the
\npromotions given to the promotees in excess of quota were temporary\/ad hoc
\nand or stop-gap arrangement without reckoning the period of their
\nofficiation as STIs for the purposes of fixing their seniority,<\/p>\n
10, The promotees strongly relied upon circular issued by the govern-ment
\non 2nd September, 1989 regarding the seniority of the Sales Tax Inspectors
\nwith reference to the rules and principles of seniority between the
\npromotees and direct recruits. In addition, they also relied upon a
\ncertificate dated 21st February, 1992 issued by the Government under the
\namended seniority rules declaring promotees in excess of quota as regular
\npromotees. There is a dispute as regards the correct reading and inter-
\npretation of this certificate dated 21st February, 1992.\n<\/p>\n
11. After hearing the parties, the MAT by its detailed reasoned order dated
\n3rd September, 1992 quashed the seniority list dated 12th April, 1989 after
\nsetting\/concluding the issues and directed the concerned authority to
\nprepare a fresh seniority list in terms of its order as also in accordance
\nwith the rules notified from time to time. The promotees moved this Court<\/p>\n
in SLP (c) …… (CC No, 18427\/92), but, however, this Court on 10th<\/p>\n
December, 1992 dismissed the same as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“IA No. 1 for permission to file SLP is allowed. The SLP is dismissed on
\nmerits,”\n<\/p>\n
12,  In view of the decision of the MAT dated 3rd September, 1992 and on
\nSLP confirmed by this Court on 10th December, 1992, a fresh seniority list
\nwas issued on 28th December, 1992 and was finalised on 29th October, 1993.
\nThe appellants\/promotees who were aggrieved by the said seniority list
\nfiled O.A. No. 690-A of 1993 before the MAT, Bombay Bench. The direct
\nrecruits were also made parties to this O.A. MAT, Bombay Bench, vide its
\nimpugned Judgment dated 23rd March, 1994 dismissing the O.A. It is against
\nthis order passed by MAT, Bombay Bench, the appellants have filed this CM
\nAppeal No. 7717 of 1994.\n<\/p>\n
13.  The impugned judgment principally proceeded on the footing that the
\ncontentions raised by the appellants were barred by principle of res
\njudicata in view of the earlier decision of the MAT, Bombay Bench rendered
\non 3rd September, 1992 whereunder the seniority list dated April 12,1989
\ncame to be quashed. The MAT then directed concerned authority to prepare a
\nfresh seniority list in terms of directions contained in its order dated
\nSeptember 3, 1992. The MAT also considered in its impugned judgment the
\nmerits of the claim set up by the appellants and while negating the same on
\nmerits issued certain directions contained in para-graph 50 thereof. The
\nMAT gave the findings on merits in order to avoid the order of remand in
\nthe event the higher court comes to the conclusion that the contentions
\nraised by the appellants in. O.A. No. 690-A of 1993 are not barred by res-
\njudicata or constructive res- judicata. Before we deal with the rival
\ncontentions on merits, it would be appropriate to set out relevant
\ncontentions and the findings recorded thereof by the MAT, Bombay Bench in
\nits judgment dated September 3, 1992 as to whether the contentions raised
\nin the present proceedings are barred by res- judicata\/constructive res
\njudicata.\n<\/p>\n
14. The principle of res judicata is sought to be applied on the footing
\nthat the identical contentions were raised in Transfer Petition No. 822 of
\n1991 and, therefore, such contentions cannot be re-agitated in the present
\nQA. It may be true that the appellants have got a fresh cause of action
\nbecause the seniority list was prepared in 1993 by following the decision
\nin Transfer Petition Case No. 822 of 1991 but it will not alter the
\nsituation in view of the fact that identical contentions\/issues were sought
\nto be re-agitated in O.A. No. 690-A of 1993. All these contentions\/issues
\nwere concluded not only by the MAT Bombay Bench, but by this Court also in<\/p>\n
SLP (C) No…….(CC No. 18427 of 1992). Certainly findings on such issues<\/p>\n
must operate as res judicata in the present proceedings otherwise the very
\nrule of res judicata will be defeated<\/p>\n
15.  As stated earlier, Transfer Application No. 822 of 1991 (Writ Petition
\nNo. 4852 of 1989) was filed by two direct recruits against the State of
\nMaharashtra, the Commissioner of Sales Tax and Rajak Daud Mapari who was a
\npromotee. To this O.A., four more promotees got themselves impleaded as
\ninterveners and filed their counter affidavit opposing the said T.P. The
\ncontention raised on behalf of direct recruits was that the promo-tions
\ngiven to the promotees in excess of their quota as laid down in the Rules
\n1971 be treated as fortuitous beyond their prescribed quota. The appellants
\ncontended that since direct recruits were not adequately avail-able for
\nappointments in terms of the quota rule, the promotions were required to be
\ngiven during the respective years for administrative reasons as the Sales
\nTax Department could not be allowed to suffer because of non availability
\nof direct recruits. This contention is based on the principle that quota
\nrule was broken down and, therefore, the Government had to resort to
\ndeparture from the quota rule due to administrative exigencies. If such
\npromotions were given to the promotees they could not be said to be
\nfortuitous\/ad hoc\/temporary or stop-gap arrangement. On this topic both the
\nparties relied upon the Rules 1971, the Rules 1982 and various decisions of
\nthis Court. The MAT after analysing the relevant rules and the decisions of
\nthis Court came to the following conclusions :\n<\/p>\n
1.      It cannot be held that the quota rule has not been followed
\ncontinuously for number of years.\n<\/p>\n
2.      1971 quota rule has not been broken down.\n<\/p>\n
3.     Inter se seniority is to be guided by quota rule.\n<\/p>\n
4.     It is reasonable to implement the principles of pushing down.\n<\/p>\n
5.      Promotions in excess of quota are liable to be fortuitous.\n<\/p>\n
6.      Promotions in excess of quota in the year of promotion will aot get
\nseniority in that year.\n<\/p>\n
7.      Promotees in excess of quota will get seniority in subsequent year
\nwhen they can get place in their quota (pushing down principle).\n<\/p>\n
8.      Year is taken as unit for deciding the quota.\n<\/p>\n
16. The MAT while coining to the above conclusions noticed that (1) there
\nwas no material on record to indicate that the quota rule was broken down
\nand, therefore, the promotions given to the promotees in excess of quota
\nrule will have to be treated as regular promotions and not being
\nfortuitous\/ad hoc\/temporary\/stop-gap arrangement. The MAT also found that
\nthe government had failed to show that despite their sincere efforts, they
\ncould not adhere to the quota rule because of non-availability of eligible
\ncandidates for direct recruitment. (2) The words “as far as practicable”
\nappearing in Rule 2 of Rules 1971 could not be equated with impossible and
\nfor that the MAT had referred to the number of vacancies that fell to the
\nshare of direct recruits. It was noticed that during the period from 6th
\nSeptember, 1971 to 31st December, 1987, 1050 posts fell to the share of
\ndirect recruits as per the quota rule, but, however, only 346 direct
\nrecruits were appointed. Except for the year when recruitment was not
\npermitted by the government for the rest of the years either the
\nrequisitions were not sent on time or the number of candidates for direct
\nrecruits was restricted by the MPSC, For some years, no requisitions were
\nsent to MPSC. (3) No material was produced on record to indicate that
\ngovern-ment ever took a conscious decision to deviate from the quota rule
\nas it was broken down and, therefore, promotees were required to be
\npromoted in excess of their quota. The number of posts for direct recruits
\nfalling vacant were 704 for the said block. (4) The Government had taken no
\nactive steps in the direction of direct recruitment. The promotions given
\nto the promotees in excess of their quota were either fortuitous\/fid
\nhoc\/tem-porary or stop-gap arrangement and, therefore, notwithstanding that
\nsuch promotees were officiating for long period, they will have to be
\npushed down in the seniority list below the direct recruits for the
\nrespective year\/s of recruitment.\n<\/p>\n
Consistent with these findings, the MAT concluded thus :\n<\/p>\n
“It has not been explained by the respondents whether the seniority list
\npublished by the Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax, vide his letter dated
\n12th April, 1989 is in accordance with the instructions issued by the
\nGovernment vide Government letter dated 2nd September, 1989. Therefore, the
\nGovernment will have to forthwith cancel the impugned seniority list
\npublished on 12th April, 1989 and to prepare a fresh seniority list of the
\nSales Tax Inspectors in accordance with the law. It is needless to soy that
\nthe appointments made in excess of the quota will have to be treated as
\nfortuitous. Therefore, the respondents are directed to revise the seniority
\nlist and republish it in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme
\nCourt as well as the letter No. VIKRANT -1087\/41\/87\/Administration-7 dated
\n2nd September, 1989 addressed to Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax,
\nBombay, within a period of six months, from the date of this order.”\n<\/p>\n
17. As stated earlier, promotees challenged this order in SLP bearing CC
\nNo. 18427 of 1992 and the same carne to be dismissed on December 10, 1992.
\nIn view of the finality attained by the judgment and order dated September
\n3, 1992 passed by the MAT Bombay Bench, the Government issued a fresh
\nseniority list on December 28, 1992 which was finalised on October 29,
\n1993. In this seniority list, the promotees were pushed down below the
\ndirect recruits as per the directions contained in the judgement of the MAT
\ndated September 3, 1992. It is this seniority list which was challenged by
\nthe appellants before the MAT Bombay Bench, in Original Application No.
\n690-A of 1993. The MAT Bombay Bench, vide its judg-ment and order dated
\n23rd March, 1994 dismissed the said O.A.\n<\/p>\n
18. Mr. Ganguly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of this
\nappeal urged that the phrase used in Rule 2 “as far as practicable” proves
\nbeyond any pale of doubt that there is no fix quota between promotees and
\nnominees and the said explanation “as far as practicable” cannot be given a
\nrestrictive interpretation and it cannot be gainsaid that no definite quota
\nexists between the promotees and nominees and any departure thereof would
\namount to breach of quota rule. In support of this submission, he drew
\nsupport from the decision of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II
\nEngineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra and Others,<\/a>
\n[1990] 2 SCC 715, wherein the words “as far as practicable” have been
\ninterpreted as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“The other important feature was that the proviso fixing the ratio, far
\nfrom being imperative, permitted the State Government to exercise its
\ndiscretion according to the demand of the exigencies, by using the
\nexpression “as far as practicable”. The case of the appellants is that the
\nsaid expression was inserted in the proviso with the object of avoiding
\nfractions in arithmetical calculations of number of posts available to the
\ntwo groups, and for no other purpose. We do not see any reason to so
\nrestrict the scope and meaning of the expression “as far as practicable”. A
\nsimilar expres-sion in identical terms used in certain other rules came up
\nfor consideration in N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat and it was held that
\nif it became non-feasible and impracticable for the State to fill up the
\nrequisite quota by direct recruits after making a serious efforts to do so,
\nit was free to fill the posts by promotions of suitable hands, if the
\nfilling up of the vacancies was administratively neces-sary and could not
\nwait. Similar is the position here, and the Rule 1 of the 1960 Rules must
\nbe held to be realistic and flexible, true to life rather than abstractly
\nabsolute.”\n<\/p>\n
19. While construing the phrase “as far as practicable”, in the manner
\nsuggested by the respondents, it must be indicated that serious efforts
\nwere made with all promptness on the part of the State to secure the hands
\nto fill up the required number of vacancies from the open market.\n<\/p>\n
20,  This submission was also raised in Transfer Petition No. 822 of 1991
\nand while construing the said expression, MAT Bombay Bench, referred to the
\njudgment in N.K Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, [1917] 1 SCC 308 and held that
\nhaving regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular
\nthe inaction on the part of the State Government in recruiting the direct
\nrecruits during this block, it could not be said that the State in tune
\nwith the mandate of the rule had made serious efforts to secure the hands
\nto fill up the required number of vacancies from the open market. The
\nTribunal in paragraph 7 has concluded :\n<\/p>\n
“According to him between the period 6th September, 1971 to 31st December,
\n1987, 2561 posts of Sales Tax Inspectors have been filled, out of which
\nonly 335 posts have gone to direct recruits and the remaining 2226 have
\ngone to promotees and thus 1202 promotees have been promoted in excess of
\nquota. The total percentage of direct recruitment would come hardly to 13%
\nas against the 60% described in Rule 2 of Maharashtra Sales Tax Inspectors
\n(Recruitment) Rules, 1971.”\n<\/p>\n
21, In view of these findings, a similar contention sought to be raised in
\nthe present proceedings cannot be entertained and the Tribunal, in our
\nopinion, has rightly negatived the said contention on the ground of res
\njudicata. An equally unsustainable contention was raised on behalf of the
\nappellant that the aforesaid finding is per incuriam and as such the prin-
\nciple of res judicata will have no application. Reliance was placed on the
\ndecision of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ As-
\nsociation v. State of Maharashtra and Others, [1990] 2 SCC 715, Municipal
\nCorporation of Delhi v. Gurmam Kaur,<\/a> [1989] 1 SCC 101 and A.R. Antulay v.
\nR.S. Nayak and Another,<\/a> [1988] 2 SCC 602. We wonder how this contention can
\nbe accepted in view of the specific finding recorded by the MAT in its
\njudgment dated September 3, 1992 which is quoted herein above. This
\nsubmission cannot be sustained and hence rejected.\n<\/p>\n
22. It was then contended on behalf of the appellants that neither the
\nrecruitment rules of 1971 nor the seniority rules of 1982 provided for
\ncarrying forward the vacancies falling in either category. In the absence
\nof such rule which specifically provide for carrying forward the vacancies
\nfalling in either category, no such carry forward rule could be implied
\neither in Recruitment Rules or in the Seniority Rules. This contention need
\nhot detain us any longer because such a contention was available to the
\nappellants in the earlier proceedings, namely, Transfer Petition No, 822 of
\n1991 and the same was not put in. issue. That not having been done, it must
\nfollow that such a contention is barred by principle of constructive res
\njudicata. Neither the contesting respondents nor the appellants ever raised
\nthis contention at any stage of the proceedings in Transfer Petition No.
\n822 of 1991. It would, therefore, be too late to raise such a contention
\nwhen the seniority list has been finalised pursuant to the judgment of the
\nMAT Bombay Bench in Transfer Petition No. 822 of 1991. The reliance placed
\non behalf of the appellants on the decision of this Court in Narender
\nChadha and Others v. Union of India and Others,<\/a> [1986] 2 SCC 157,
\ntherefore, does not advance the case of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
23. It was then contended on behalf of the appellants that in the year
\n1988, the Recruitment Rules were amended and as per the amended rules,
\ncases where appointments are not made strictly in accordance with the ratio
\nof recruitment as prescribed in the Rules 1971, such appointments will not
\nbe fortuitous appointments if the competent authority certified that it was
\nnot expedient\/possible or practicable to make a regular appointment
\nstrictly in accordance with the ratio. In support of this submission,
\nreliance was placed on the certificate dated 21st February, 1992 issued by
\nthe Competent Authority in terms of the amended Rules. The legality and
\ncorrectness of the said certificate, counsel urged, cannot be challenged.
\nThe certificate reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
“In accordance with the said Rules dated 23rd September, 1988, it is hereby
\ncertified that from 6th September, 1971 to 31st Decem-ber, 1987, total 1750
\nposts of Sales Tax Inspectors became vacant. Under the recruitment rules,
\n1050 posts, for Direct recruits were required to be filled in according to
\nthe ratio of 60:40. However, during the said period only 346 direct
\nrecruits were available and they were appointed. Balance of 704 posts of
\nSales Tax Inspectors to be filled in by temporary promotions because no
\ncandidates were available for direct recruitment for posts of Sales Tax
\nInspectors.” (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
24. We fail to understand how, on the face of finding noted above, this
\ncertificate would advance the case of the appellants. Further the
\ncertificate recites that the balance of 704 posts of Sales Tax Inspectors
\n“to be filled in by temporary promotions” because no candidates were
\navailable for direct recruitment for the post of Sales Tax Inspectors. On
\nthe contrary, this certificate unmistakably indicates that although it was
\nissued on 21st February, 1992, the promotions given to the promotees in
\nexcess of their quota for the respective unit years were treated as
\ntemporary promotions. No document is brought to our notice to indicate that
\nthe Government of Maharashtra has ever taken any decision much less the
\nconscious decision in accordance with law to treat the promotions of these
\npromotees (in excess of the quota) on regular basis. In the absence of any
\nsuch decision on the part of the Government, it would be wrong to assert
\nthat such promotions were on regular basis and not fortuitous\/temporary\/ad
\nhoc or stop-gap arrangement. This certificate, therefore, is of no
\nconsequence. This certificate was issued on 21st February, 1992 when the
\nTransfer Petition No, 822 of 1991 was pending before the MAT when it
\nrendered its judgment on September 3, 1992. It does not appear that either
\nof the parties ever produced the same in the earlier proceedings. The
\nrespon-dents were therefore justified in contending that this issue cannot
\nbe agitated in the present proceedings as it is barred under the principle
\nof constructive res judicata. Even on merits of this certificate, we have
\nalready indicated that the appellant cannot draw any support therefrom to
\ncontend that the promotions were on regular basis. It was contended by Mr.
\nK.K. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that
\nthis certificate was issued by the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax after
\nthe service of notices in Transfer Petition No, 822 of 1991. Of course,
\nthere is no prohibition\/bar as such but, this would only indicate an
\nafterthought attempt to lend support to the appellants. This contention
\nmust also stand rejected.\n<\/p>\n
25. It was then contended by Mr. Ganguly that the respondents 3 and 4 in
\nTransfer Petition No. 822 of 1991 were not sued in a representative
\ncapacity on behalf of all the promotees. No leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC
\nwas obtained by the petitioners therein (direct recruits). In view of this
\nrelevant circumstances, at the most, it would be an inter partis judgment
\nand would not bind the appellants save and except the respondents Nos. 3
\nand 4. This submission was strongly opposed on behalf of the non-official
\nrespondents. It was contended by Mr. Singhvi, the learned Senior Counsel
\nthat the petitioners in T.P. Case No. 822 of 1.991 sued the respondent Nos.
\n3 and 4 in a representative capacity and, therefore, the law laid down by
\nthe MAT Bombay Bench in Transfer Petition No. 822 of 1991 must bind all the
\npromotees who are similarly situated. This contention raised on behalf of
\nappellants was negatived by the MAT in its impugned judgment and held that
\nthe said Transfer Petition by the direct recruits was in the representative
\ncapacity. No such specific contention appears to have been taken up in the
\npresent civil appeal. We see no reason to doubt the findings of the
\nTribunal in this behalf which is supported by Mr. Singhvi.\n<\/p>\n
26. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that some of :the
\nappellants have put in more than 17 years of service when few of the direct
\nrecruits were either schooling and\/or not born in the cadre. If the
\nappellants were to be pushed down, it will cause a great hardship to them.
\nWe are unable to subscribe to this contention because if there is patent
\nviolation of the quota rule, the result must follow and the appellants who
\nremained in the office for all these years cannot take the advantage of
\nthis situation. This submission is, therefore, devoid of any substance.\n<\/p>\n
27.  Thus, we concur with the findings recorded by the MAT on the issue of
\nres judicata and consequently, the O.A. No. 690-A of 1993 will have to be
\ndismissed on this ground alone for the reasons recorded herein above. We
\naccordingly do so. If this be so, the findings of the MAT in the impugned
\njudgment on merits and certain directions issued therein and in particular
\npara 50 would be of no consequence. Accordingly, any such direction in the
\noperative portion of the impugned judgment based on para 50 will be non
\nest. Principle of pushing down will have to be adhered to so long as the
\nRules of 1971 and Rules of 1982 as interpreted by MAT and this Court hold
\nthe field. The seniority of such pushed down STIs vis-a-vis the direct
\nrecruits appointed after 31st December, 1987 is left open as it was not the
\nsubject matter of O.A. Consequently, challenge to the im-pugned seniority
\nlists issued on 28th December, 1992 and finalised on 29th October, 1993 as
\non 31st December, 1987 must fail. We must make it clear that subject matter
\nof challenge before the MAT was in respect of im-pugned seniority list
\nissued on December 28, 1992 and final seniority list issued on October 29,
\n1993. It is expressly made clear that this judgment is confined to the
\nseniority list as on 31st December, 1987 and no more.\n<\/p>\n
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal
\nand the same is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties are
\ndirected to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
I.A. No. 7 of 1997 & I.A. No. 8 of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
In view of our order in the main appeal, I.A. No. 7 of 1997 and I.A. No. 8
\nof 1998 are allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No. 6316 of 1997<\/p>\n
This Civil Appeal by Special Leave is filed by the State of Maharashtra
\nchallenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated
\nFebruary 23,1989 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in
\nWrit Petition No. 2742 of 1987. This writ petition was filed by the first
\nrespondent Vasant Krishnaji Chavan, the Sales Tax Inspector (for short
\n‘STI’) on behalf of himself and other similarly situated STIs who were
\npromoted to the posts of STIs prior to September 1, 1980. To this writ
\npetition, State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Sales Tax
\nMaharashtra State along with other 35 respondents were arrayed as
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
The challenge in this writ petition was to the provisional seniority list
\nof STIs as on April 1, 1984 issued by the Government of Maharashtra on
\nApril 28, 1987. It is this provisional seniority list which was quashed by
\nthe High Court by this impugned order and the State Government was directed
\nto prepare a fresh seniority list of STIs in accordance with the directions
\ncontained therein.\n<\/p>\n
A few facts leading to the present proceedings are as under :\n<\/p>\n
Prior to April 1974, the staffing pattern amongst Class III employees in
\nthe Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra State was (1) Clerk (2) Sales Tax
\nInspectors and (3) Selection Grade Inspectors. Prior to the said date, the
\npost of Clerk was divided into Junior Clerk and Senior Clerk. The posts of
\nSTIs are filled up by promotion as well as nomination in equal ratio.
\nPromotion to the STI from the cadre of Clerk was made from the suitable
\ncandidates on the basis of the certificate issued by the Select Committee
\nabout his suitability. The post of Sales Tax Inspector is a selection post.\n<\/p>\n
Earlier, the work of recovery of sale tax was entrusted to the Revenue
\nDepartment of the Government of Maharashtra. The Government of Maharashtra
\nvide their Resolutions passed in 1976 and 1978 decided to transfer the said
\nwork to the Sales Tax Department and accordingly in the year 1980, they
\nimplemented the said decision. Resultantly, 462 posts in the Revenue
\nDepartment for the recovery of sale tax dues were abolished and equal
\nnumber of posts were created on the establishment of Sales Tax Department.
\nA question arose as to how to equate these posts with various corresponding
\nposts in the Sales Tax Department in terms of the Govern-ment resolution
\ndated September 25, 1978. The posts were equated as<\/p>\n
under :\n<\/p>\n
The post of Aval Karkun\/Senior Clerk in the service of Revenue Department
\nwas equated with the post of Senior Clerk in the Sales Tax Department as
\nthe scale for both these posts was identical i.e. Rs. 335-15-500-20-580-
\nBB-20-680.\n<\/p>\n
Consistent with this Government Resolution, the employees in the Revenue
\nDepartment came to be absorbed in the Sales Tax Department permitting them
\nto exercise the option in this behalf. While determining the seniority of
\nsuch absorbed employees vis-a-vis the employees in the Sales Tax Department
\nworking on the post of Senior Clerks, the Govern-ment of Maharashtra,
\nFinance Department by Resolution dated June 18, 1980 determined the norms
\nof fixation of the seniority and it reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
“So far as terms and conditions regarding fixation of seniority are
\nconcerned, the seniority of the revenue staff in the post of absorp-tion
\nshould be fixed from the date from which such persons are working regularly
\nin the equated posts prior to their absorption, for all purposes, including
\npromotions, confirmation, etc. The total length of service in the
\nequivalent posts in the Revenue Depart-ment in which a person was working
\nregularly prior to absorption should be taken into account for fixation of
\nseniority in the post of absorption.”\n<\/p>\n
36 employees from the Revenue Department came to be absorbed in the Sales
\nTax Department in terms of the order dated December 12, 1980. The said
\norder also recites that the seniority of the Revenue staff in the post of
\nabsorption will be separately fixed from the date from which such persons
\nwere working regularly in the equated posts prior to their absorption for
\nall purposes including promotions, confirmations, etc. These 36 employees
\nwho were absorbed in the Sales Tax Department were holding the posts of
\nSenior Clerk\/Aval Karkun, Aval Karkun, Entertain-ment Duty Inspectors etc,
\nin the Revenue Department and since their scale was found to be equivalent
\nto the Senior Clerk in the Sales Tax Depart-ment, they were absorbed in the
\ncadre of Senior Clerk in the Sales Tax Department. These employees are the
\nrespondents at serial Nos. 2 to 36 in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The respondents herein (the writ petitioners) and other similarly situated
\nclerks and Senior Clerks who were working in the Sales Tax Department were
\npromoted from October 15, 1976 onwards to the posts of STIs against regular
\nvacancies. Respondents 2 to 36 who were absorbed from the Revenue
\nDepartment in the Sales Tax Department in the cadre of Senior Clerk were
\nalso promoted to the post of Sales Tax Inspectors in August, 1981. The
\ntotal number of Clerks and Senior Clerks working in the Sales Tax
\nDepartment came to be promoted from October 15, 1976, were about 200 in
\nnumber. The seniority list of the Senior Clerks of Sales Tax Department as
\non September 1, 1980 was prepared and published on May 15, 1982 by the
\nGovernment of Maharashtra wherein respondents 2 to 36 herein were included.
\nFrom the provisional seniority list so published, it appears that such of
\nthe Clerks\/Senior Clerks working in the Sales Tax Department and promoted
\nprior to September 1, 1980 were not included in the seniority list. The
\nSales Tax Department issued a circular enclosing the list of persons in the
\nSales Tax Department who were promoted from the post of Senior Clerks
\nbetween 1980 and 1982.\n<\/p>\n
From the material placed on record, it is noticed that the employees who
\nwere initially working in the Revenue Department and were absorbed in the
\nSales Tax Department were making representations to the State Government to
\nreckon their seniority in the cadre of STIs by taking into account their
\nservice\/seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk in their parent department.
\nThe Government of Maharashtra, however, published the provisional seniority
\nlist on April 28, 1987 whereby respondents 2 to 36 herein were included in
\nthe said provisional seniority list. It is this provisional seniority list
\nwhich was challenged by the first respondent on behalf of himself and
\nsimilarly situated STIs who were promoted between 1976 and 1980. The first
\nrespondent pleaded that on the date when the respondents 2 to 36 were
\nabsorbed, the first respondent and other similarly situated persons were
\nalready promoted as STIs and, therefore, the provisional seniority list was
\nnot only erroneous but also violative of Ar-ticles 14 and 16 of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
The appellants herein and also the respondents 2 to 36 contested the claim
\nof the first respondent on the ground that in view of the decision of the
\nGovernment to absorb the Senior Clerks\/Aval Karkuns, Aval Karkuns,
\nEntertainment Duty Inspectors etc. on the equivalent posts in the cadre of
\nSenior Clerk in the Sales Tax Department, they are entitled to reckon their
\nseniority in the parent department as they were absorbed along with their
\nseniority. It was, therefore, necessary to prepare a common seniority list
\nof the Clerk\/Senior Clerks of the Sales Tax Department as well as the ab-
\nsorbed employees from the Revenue Department. The promotions to the post of
\nSTIs be governed by the seniority subject to other rifles, regulations and
\ngovernment orders. The provisional seniority list prepared by the State of
\nMaharashtra suffers from no infirmity and the writ petition be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court after con-sidering the
\nrival contentions found that the provisional seniority list pub-lished by
\nthe Government of Maharashtra on April 28,1987 is contrary to law and the
\nsame cannot be sustained. The High Court opined that the post of Sales Tax
\nInspector being a selection post and unless the Select Committee finds the
\nSenior Clerk suitable, no promotion to such selection post could be made.
\nThe first respondent and other similarly situated persons were selected by
\nthe Select Committee and came to be promoted to the STIs from October
\n15,1976 onwards. The absorbed employees from the Revenue Department might
\nbe entitled for appropriate placements in the seniority list of Clerks and
\nSenior Clerks in the Sales Tax Department but, however, it cannot be
\nignored that such absorbed employees came to be promoted as STIs much after
\nthe respondent No. 1 and other similarly situated persons were promoted. As
\nstated earlier, the first respondent and other similarly situated persons
\nwere promoted between 1976 and 1980 whereas respondent Nos. 2 to 36 were
\nselected by the Select Committee and came to be promoted in the year 1981
\nand thereafter. The Government Resolution dated June 18, 1980 specifically
\nrecites that the seniority of the absorbed employees should be fixed in the
\nequated post i.e. in the present case in the cadre of Senior Clerk. The
\nResolution nowhere provides that seniority can have any effect while
\ndetermining the seniority in the higher cadre of Sales Tax Inspector, The
\neffect of the impugned provisional seniority list dated April 28, 1987
\nwould be that the respondent Nos. 2 to 36 who were absorbed personnel and
\nwho were promoted as the Sales Tax Inspectors after 1981 would be senior to
\nthose STIs like the first respon-dent and other similarly situated persons
\nwho were promoted after selec-tion prior to September, 1980. It was,
\ntherefore, an error on the part of the Government to ignore the date of
\nselection and appointment of the first respondent and other similarly
\nsituated employees to the post of STIs and treat them as junior to
\nrespondent Nos. 2 to 36 who were selected sub-sequently. If such course is
\nfollowed, the action of the Government of Maharashtra and the Commissioner
\nof Sales Tax would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
\nThe Division Bench accordingly set aside the impugned provisional seniority
\nlist and directed the Government of Maharashtra to prepare fresh seniority
\nlist in accordance with the directions contained in the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Sathe, the learned Advocate appearing for the State of Maharashtra took
\nus through the impugned judgment as well as the relevant documents on
\nrecord but was unable to persuade us to take a different view than the one
\ntaken by the High Court, As indicated earlier, the respondent No. 1 and
\nother similarly situated persons were selected by the Select Committee and
\ncame to be promoted between 1976 and 1980 whereas the respondent Nos. 2 to
\n36 were selected by the Select Committee and came to be promoted in 1981
\nand thereafter. If this be so, in our opinion, the provisional seniority
\nlist has been rightly quashed by the High Court. Thus, the appeal is devoid
\nof any substance.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appeal to stand dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari … vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2000 Bench: S.P. Kurdukar, S.S.M. Quadri CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7717 of 1994 PETITIONER: MAHARASHTRA VIKRIKAR KARAMCHARI SANGATHAN RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/01\/2000 BENCH: S.P. KURDUKAR & S.S.M. QUADRI JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2000 (1) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMaharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-16T11:53:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"40 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari … vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-16T11:53:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000\"},\"wordCount\":8042,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000\",\"name\":\"Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-16T11:53:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari … vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-16T11:53:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"40 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari … vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2000","datePublished":"2000-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-16T11:53:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000"},"wordCount":8042,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000","name":"Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-16T11:53:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-vikrikar-karamchari-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-on-12-january-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari … vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29393","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29393"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29393\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}