{"id":43482,"date":"2008-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-05-12T23:36:04","modified_gmt":"2016-05-12T18:06:04","slug":"shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More vs Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje on 30 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More vs Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje on 30 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: D.K. Deshmukh, J.P. Devadhar<\/div>\n
                                   1\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                   WRIT PETITION NO.6380 OF 2006\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    1.Shri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More\n    and others.                             ...Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n             vs.\n\n    1.Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje\n    and others.                             ...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n                                ---\n                         \n    Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar with N.V.Bandiwadekar, for\n    Petitioners.\n\n    Ms.Ranjana Todankar i\/b. S.S.Pakale,for Respondents 1 to4\n                        \n    Mr.S.C.Prabhu, for Respondents 11,16,41,43,48 & 52.\n\n    Mr.A.Y.Sakhare i\/b. Y.K.S.Legal, for Respondents 147,148.\n          \n\n\n    Ms.M.P.Thakur, AGP for Respondents 152,153,155.\n       \n\n\n\n                                and\n\n                   WRIT PETITION NO.1696 OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n\n    1.The Government of Maharashtra\n    and another.                            ...Petitioners.\n\n             vs.\n\n    1.Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje\n\n\n\n\n\n    and others.                             ...Respondents\n\n                                ---\n\n    Ms.M.P.Thakur, AGP for Petitioners.\n\n\n                                       CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &\n                                              J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                       DATED: 30th September,2008.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
    P.C.:-\n<\/p>\n
    1.          By    both       these   petitions,    the     same        order<\/p>\n
    passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is<\/p>\n
    challenged and therefore, both these petitions can be<\/p>\n
    conveniently disposed of by a common order.\n<\/p>\n
    2.<\/p>\n
                The facts that are relevant and material for<\/p>\n
    deciding these two petitions are that by the order of<\/p>\n
    the     Maharashtra          Administrative     Tribunal       which        is<\/p>\n
    impugned         in     the      petitions,       the      Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    Administrative Tribunal has decided three original<\/p>\n
    applications          i.e.     original   application        no.861         of<\/p>\n
    2005, 908 of 2005 and 159 of 2006.                        These three<\/p>\n
    original applications             were filed by the agricultural<\/p>\n
    officers who were appointed on the recommendations of<\/p>\n
    the Maharashtra Public Service Commission as per the<\/p>\n
    recruitment           rules.         In   these    three         original<\/p>\n
    applications           they       challenged      the        Government<\/p>\n
    Resolution issued by the Government of Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    dated    23.9.2005,          26.9.2005    and   27.9.2005.         By     the<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
    Government Resolution         dated 23.9.2005 issued under<\/p>\n
    Article 162 of the Constitution of India the services<\/p>\n
    of 755 persons who were appointed as Agricultural<\/p>\n
    Officers came     to be regularised from the date of<\/p>\n
    their   initial     appointment.          By     the       Government<\/p>\n
    Resolution dated 26.9.2005 a final seniority list of<\/p>\n
    the officers holding the post of agricultural officer<\/p>\n
    was   published   which   included        names     of     these        755<\/p>\n
    agricultural officers.\n<\/p>\n
                             ig    By the Government resolution<\/p>\n
    dated 27.9.2005, 142 out of these 755 Agricultural<\/p>\n
    officers were     promoted to       the higher post on the<\/p>\n
    basis of     list dated 26.9.2005.             In short, in these<\/p>\n
    three original applications, the action of the State<\/p>\n
    Government     regularising         the    services            of        755<\/p>\n
    agricultural officers, giving them seniority over the<\/p>\n
    agricultural      officers      who       were     appointed              on<\/p>\n
    recommendation     of   the    Maharashtra        Public         Service<\/p>\n
    Commission and promoting them to the higher post was<\/p>\n
    challenged.\n<\/p>\n
    3.         The Government of Maharashtra framed rules<\/p>\n
    viz. “Agricultural Officers (Class III) (Recruitment)<\/p>\n
    Rules 1980” (hereinafter referred to as “1980 Rules”)<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
    governing the recruitment to the post of agricultural<\/p>\n
    officer      (Class    III).         These    rules       provided            for<\/p>\n
    filling in 50% of the posts of Agricultural officers<\/p>\n
    (class III) by direct recruitment of the candidates<\/p>\n
    who    are    selected    by        the   selection         board         after<\/p>\n
    advertisement in the official Gazette and it also<\/p>\n
    provides for filling in 50% posts by promotion of<\/p>\n
    departmental          candidates.          The         Government              of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra      issued<\/p>\n
                              resolution         dated       28.8.1981.            By<\/p>\n
    that resolution the post of Agricultural officer was<\/p>\n
    given Gazetted status with effect from 1.5.1981.                             The<\/p>\n
    consequence was that the personnel who were holding<\/p>\n
    the post of agricultural officer (Class III) on and<\/p>\n
    from 1.5.1981 became Gazetted officers.                          The other<\/p>\n
    consequence was that now because of the regulation<\/p>\n
    framed by the State Government under Article 320 of<\/p>\n
    the   Constitution       of    India      appointment         on      regular<\/p>\n
    basis to the post of Agricultural officer could be<\/p>\n
    made only on the recommendation of Maharashtra Public<\/p>\n
    Service Commission.\n<\/p>\n
    4.           In exercise of its power under Article 309<\/p>\n
    of    the    Constitution      of    India,      the    Government             of<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
    Maharashtra     framed          “The       Maharashtra           Agricultural<\/p>\n
    service, Class I, Class II and Class II (Junior) in<\/p>\n
    the     Directorate        of     Agriculture          (Land         and       Water<\/p>\n
    Management      Group)           (Recruitment)               Rules,            1983”\n<\/p>\n
    (hereinafter referred to as “1983 Rules”).                                     These<\/p>\n
    rules    provided     that        appointment          to      the       post       of<\/p>\n
    Agricultural officer Class II (Junior) was to be made<\/p>\n
    50% by nomination of the candidates recommended by<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra     Public
\n                                ig  Service     Commission            and      50%      by<\/p>\n
    promotion of Agricultural supervisors.                            Before 1983<\/p>\n
    Recruitment rules were framed i.e. from 1.5.1981 to<\/p>\n
    4.8.1983, 63 persons were appointed on ad-hoc basis<\/p>\n
    as Agricultural Officers (Class III), and thereafter<\/p>\n
    after the 1983 Rules were framed i.e. from 5.8.1983<\/p>\n
    to 31.12.1984 about 692 persons were appointed on ad-\n<\/p>\n
    hoc basis as Agricultural officers (Class III).\n<\/p>\n
    5.         It   appears          that      the   Government              moved        a<\/p>\n
    proposal     before        the        Maharashtra       Public             Service<\/p>\n
    Commission      for         obtaining            its        approval              for<\/p>\n
    regularisation        of        the    services        of       these              755<\/span><\/p>\n
    Agricultural officers (Class II).                      In the year 1994,<\/p>\n
    the   Maharashtra      Public         Service     Commission              held       an<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
    examination for these 755 Agricultural Officers and<\/p>\n
    the Maharashtra Public Service Commission forwarded<\/p>\n
    the result to the State Government by letter dated<\/p>\n
    21.4.1995     and    recommended      that     services            of      533<\/p>\n
    Agricultural     officers     may    be    regularised          from       the<\/p>\n
    date of declaration of the result.             It may be pointed<\/p>\n
    out that though the result has                not     actually been<\/p>\n
    declared by the State          Government, it has come on<\/p>\n
    record that 533 Agricultural Officers have passed the<\/p>\n
    examination.        It appears that the State Government<\/p>\n
    did   not   agree      with    the    recommendation              of       the<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra      Public   Service         Commission         about         the<\/p>\n
    regularisation of the services of 533 Agricultural<\/p>\n
    officers from the date of declaration of the result,<\/p>\n
    and therefore, it issued a Government Resolution in<\/p>\n
    exercise    of   its   power    under       Article       162      of      the<\/p>\n
    Constitution of India regularising the services of<\/p>\n
    755   Agricultural     Officers      from    the    date        of      their<\/p>\n
    initial appointment which was on ad-hoc basis. By<\/p>\n
    further     resolution         seniority       of         these           755<\/span><\/p>\n
    Agricultural officers was fixed from the date of ad-\n<\/p>\n
    hoc appointment. It may be pointed out here that in<\/p>\n
    accordance with 1983 Rules, the Maharashtra Public<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
    Service Commission held examination and pursuant to<\/p>\n
    the recommendation made by M.P.S.C. about 207 persons<\/p>\n
    were   appointed         as    Agricultural             Officer       Class        II<\/p>\n
    (Junior) from the year 1991 till 1994.                         The executive<\/p>\n
    decision      of      the      State        Government         of       granting<\/p>\n
    regularisation        in      service       to    all    755    agricultural<\/p>\n
    officers from the date of their initial appointment,<\/p>\n
    therefore,     had       adverse      effect       on    the      interest          of<\/p>\n
    those agricultural officers who were recruited on the<\/p>\n
    recommendations          of    the    Maharashtra          Public         Service<\/p>\n
    Commission         because they became junior in the cadre<\/p>\n
    of Agricultural officer to those officers, because<\/p>\n
    not    only    755       agricultural            officers         were        given<\/p>\n
    seniority      above       them      but    142    of     them      were        even<\/p>\n
    promoted to the higher post, and therefore, it is for<\/p>\n
    these reasons that those directly recruited persons<\/p>\n
    had    filed       the        above        referred       three         original<\/p>\n
    applications        challenging            the   action      of     the       State<\/p>\n
    Government. Those             three original applications have<\/p>\n
    been    decided       by       the     Maharashtra          Administrative<\/p>\n
    Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 2.8.2006.\n<\/p>\n
    The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has set aside<\/p>\n
    all    the    three      Government          resolutions          which         were<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
    challenged before it.               The M.A.T. directed the State<\/p>\n
    Government        to     regularise         the        services         of      535<\/p>\n
    agricultural officers who were declared as successful<\/p>\n
    candidate     in       the     examination            conducted         by      the<\/p>\n
    Commission       from    the       date    of    communication           of      the<\/p>\n
    result by the Commission to the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
    The orders giving promotion were also set aside and<\/p>\n
    the   Government        was    directed          to   make    promotion            in<\/p>\n
    accordance with the fresh seniority list that it may<\/p>\n
    prepare pursuant to the directions of the M.A.T. Some<\/p>\n
    out   of   755    Agricultural            Officers      have      filed        writ<\/p>\n
    petition no.6380 of 2006 challenging the order of the<\/p>\n
    M.A.T.     setting       aside       the        Government       Resolutions<\/p>\n
    challenged       before       it    and    claiming       that       they       are<\/p>\n
    entitled to be regularised in service from the date<\/p>\n
    of initial appointment.                   The Government has filed<\/p>\n
    writ petition no.1696 of 2007 also challenging the<\/p>\n
    order of the M.A.T.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          The         learned           Counsel        appearing              for<\/p>\n
    petitioners submitted that the Tribunal has directed<\/p>\n
    the   Government        to    regularise         the    services         of      535<\/p>\n
    Agricultural officers who have passed the examination<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
    conducted      by     the       M.P.S.C,          from      the        date        of<\/p>\n
    communication of          the result of the examination.                            He<\/p>\n
    submitted that however once the said 535 Agricultural<\/p>\n
    officers have passed the examination conducted by the<\/p>\n
    M.P.S.C. their regularisation should relate back to<\/p>\n
    their initial appointment and not from the date of<\/p>\n
    communication of the result, otherwise it would not<\/p>\n
    be     regularisation           but        it     would      be       a        fresh<\/p>\n
    appointment.        The<\/p>\n
                                learned         Counsel       relied          on      the<\/p>\n
    observations of the Supreme Court in the judgment in<\/p>\n
    the case of “The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering<\/p>\n
    Officers’      Association            and       others     Vs.       State         of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1607”,<\/p>\n
    more    particularly           on     the       observations          found         in<\/p>\n
    paragraph 44(b) of the judgment.                    The learned Counsel<\/p>\n
    also relied on the observations of the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
    in   its    judgment      in    the    case       “Union      of     India       and<\/p>\n
    another Vs. Lalita s. Rao and others, (2001)5 Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court      Cases    384”.      He     submitted      that       since          these<\/p>\n
    agricultural          officers             continued           in         service<\/p>\n
    uninterruptedly and they have also passed examination<\/p>\n
    conducted by M.P.S.C., their regularisation should be<\/p>\n
    from the date of initial appointment and not from the<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
    date of result of the examination.\n<\/p>\n
    7.         It was further submitted that the Government<\/p>\n
    was required to recruit these Agricultural officers<\/p>\n
    in view of the extreme urgency and the administrative<\/p>\n
    exigency, more particularly, in view of the projects<\/p>\n
    undertaken       with    the    World     Bank    Aid       and       at     the<\/p>\n
    relevant     time       the    candidates     selected            from        the<\/p>\n
    Commission       were<\/p>\n
                             not     available.        It       was       further<\/p>\n
    submitted that all the appointees were within the<\/p>\n
    prescribed       age     limit     and     they    also           possessed<\/p>\n
    educational qualification prescribed under the rules.\n<\/p>\n
    He submitted that their appointments were made by<\/p>\n
    calling    names    through       the    Employment        Exchange           and<\/p>\n
    after interviewing the candidates.                 It was submitted<\/p>\n
    that since they continued in service for a number of<\/p>\n
    years, the Government has rightly, in its power under<\/p>\n
    Article    162    of    the    Constitution       of     India,         issued<\/p>\n
    Government Resolution and regularised their services<\/p>\n
    from the date of their initial appointment.\n<\/p>\n
    8.         It was submitted that the State Government<\/p>\n
    has entered into series of correspondence with the<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
    MPSC with a view to seek approval of the MPSC for<\/p>\n
    regularising       the     services         of     those      Agricultural<\/p>\n
    officers.       It was submitted that the MPSC approved<\/p>\n
    the     proposal    by    its    letter          dated     31.5.1990           and<\/p>\n
    19.6.1990,      whereby         the        MPSC     agreed         that         the<\/p>\n
    appointments of all the Agricultural officers were<\/p>\n
    treated as made validly as per the 1980 Recruitment<\/p>\n
    Rules. It was submitted that this amounts to MPSC<\/p>\n
    giving its approval for regularisation of services of<\/p>\n
    the Agricultural officers. It was also submitted that<\/p>\n
    though the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in the Case of “Secretary, State of<\/p>\n
    Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others, 2006<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 753”, the Tribunal failed<\/p>\n
    to appreciate the directions issued by the Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court     regarding       one    time       regularisation              of      the<\/p>\n
    service    of   the      employee.          It     was   submitted            that<\/p>\n
    therefore it can be said that the decision of the<\/p>\n
    State Government to regularise the services of the<\/p>\n
    Agricultural       Officers      was       in     consonance        with       the<\/p>\n
    judgment of the Supreme Court in “Umadevi” case,<\/p>\n
    9.          Both the petitions were opposed only by the<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
    Agricultural       officers   who       were   appointed        on     their<\/p>\n
    names being recommended by the MPSC and who had filed<\/p>\n
    the     original      applications         before       the        M.A.T.,<\/p>\n
    therefore,     they    are     hereinafter        referred           to      as<\/p>\n
    “contesting        respondents”.           The   learned           Counsel<\/p>\n
    appearing for contesting respondents submitted that<\/p>\n
    once recruitment rules were framed in exercise of<\/p>\n
    power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India<\/p>\n
    in    the   year   1983,<\/p>\n
                                the    State   had   no     authority           to<\/p>\n
    exercise     its    power     by    issuing      Resolution            under<\/p>\n
    Article 162 of the Constitution of India to regulate<\/p>\n
    the services of ad-hoc appointees.                  The power under<\/p>\n
    Article 162 of the Constitution of India cannot be<\/p>\n
    invoked in the teeth of Recruitment Rules as has been<\/p>\n
    held by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments.                           It<\/p>\n
    was further submitted that from 1.5.1981, the posts<\/p>\n
    became gazetted and came under the purview of MPSC<\/p>\n
    and therefore, any appointed to the post on regular<\/p>\n
    basis could be made only of a candidate who has been<\/p>\n
    selected and recommended by the MPSC.                  The executive<\/p>\n
    power of the State under the Constitution cannot be<\/p>\n
    used to nullify the authority of the MPSC.                           It was<\/p>\n
    submitted that neither under the 1980 Rules nor under<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                        13<\/span><\/p>\n
    the 1983 Rules the Government has power to relax any<\/p>\n
    condition, and therefore, the Government Resolution<\/p>\n
    issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India<\/p>\n
    is contrary to the Recruitment Rules framed under<\/p>\n
    Article 309 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
    10.        It     was    further        submitted      that        all       the<\/p>\n
    appointments of Agricultural officers made                            between<\/p>\n
    1.5.1981 to 4.8.1983 and 5.8.1983 to 31.12.1984 are<\/p>\n
    in    violation     of    (i)    Maharashtra           Public         Service<\/p>\n
    Commission          (Exemption             from           Consultation)<\/p>\n
    Regulation,1965; (ii) Recruitment Rules of 1980 and<\/p>\n
    (iii)   Recruitment       Rules     of     1983,       and      therefore,<\/p>\n
    exercise     of    powers       under      Article        162        of      the<\/p>\n
    Constitution       of    India     is     bad     in      law,        without<\/p>\n
    authority and in violation of Articles 14 and 16(1)<\/p>\n
    of the Constitution of India.               It was submitted that<\/p>\n
    appointments of 755 Agricultural officers was bad in<\/p>\n
    law and was not made in compliance with 1980 Rules<\/p>\n
    and 1983 Rules as none of the provisions as contained<\/p>\n
    in Rules 3 and 4 of 1980 Rules i.e. advertisement in<\/p>\n
    Gazette,   selection       by    board     and     reservation              were<\/p>\n
    followed nor       the 1983 Rules were followed, because<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                        14<\/span><\/p>\n
    under 1983 Rules appointment should have been made<\/p>\n
    only of the candidates who are recommended by MPSC.\n<\/p>\n
    It was submitted that             appointment of all the 755<\/p>\n
    Agricultural         officers     was    made     by     Director          of<\/p>\n
    Agricultural who has no authority under any of the<\/p>\n
    Rules     to    make         appointment       without      publishing<\/p>\n
    advertisement        in   the   Official   Gazette       and      without<\/p>\n
    candidate being selected by Selection Board.                       It was<\/p>\n
    submitted that the Government has framed Regulations<\/p>\n
    under proviso to Article 320 (3) of the Constitution<\/p>\n
    in the year 1965 whereby exemption from consultation<\/p>\n
    with the Public service commission is granted to the<\/p>\n
    Government only for making appointment to Gazetted<\/p>\n
    posts for a period not exceeding one year, and for<\/p>\n
    making appointment to Gazetted posts for a period<\/p>\n
    exceeding      one    year    consultation      with     the    MPSC        is<\/p>\n
    mandatory.       It is submitted that the appointments<\/p>\n
    were not irregular but they were illegal.                           It is<\/p>\n
    submitted that the petitioners have not been able to<\/p>\n
    show    anything      which     would   even    indicate       that       the<\/p>\n
    finding recorded by the M.A.T. that the appointment<\/p>\n
    of all 755 Agricultural officers were illegal, is bad<\/p>\n
    in law. In the submission               of the learned Counsel<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                     15<\/span><\/p>\n
    appearing     for    contesting      respondents,          therefore,<\/p>\n
    there is no room for this Court to interfere with the<\/p>\n
    well considered and detail order passed by the MAT.\n<\/p>\n
    The learned Counsel relied on the following judgments<\/p>\n
    of the Supreme Court:-\n<\/p>\n
    (i)         “B.N.Nagarajan Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR<\/p>\n
    1979 Supreme Court 1676,<\/p>\n
    (ii)<\/p>\n
                “J & K Public Service Commission & others<\/p>\n
    Vs.    Dr.Narinder    Mohan    and   others,   (1994)2           Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court Cases 630”,<\/p>\n
    (iii)       “A.Umarani    Vs.        Ragistrar,        Co-operative<\/p>\n
    Societies    and    others,    (2004)7   Supreme        Court        Cases<\/p>\n
    112”,<\/p>\n
    (iv)        A.K.Bhatnagar & others vs. Union of India<\/p>\n
    and others<\/a>, (1991)1 Supreme Court Cases 544,<\/p>\n
    (v)         Keshav Chandra Joshi & others etc. Vs. Union<\/p>\n
    of India and others, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 284,<\/p>\n
    (vi)        Y.H.Pawar    Vs.     State    of      Karnataka             and<\/p>\n
    another, (1996)10 Supreme Court Cases 444,<\/p>\n
    (vii)       Post Master General, Kolkata Vs. Tutu Das<\/p>\n
    (Dutta), (2007)5 Supreme Court Cases 317.\n<\/p>\n
    (viii)      Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs.<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                       16<\/span><\/p>\n
    L.V.Subramanyeswara        and     another,         (2007)5         Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court Cases 326.\n<\/p>\n
               It    was     submitted      that    in      view       of       the\n\n    findings   of    M.A.T.    and    the   law     laid       down     by     the\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n<\/pre>\n
    Supreme Court regularisation under Article 162 is not<\/p>\n
    permissible      and     the    services       of    ad-hoc         illegal<\/p>\n
    appointees      cannot    be    computed   for       the     purpose          of<\/p>\n
    seniority as their entry was illegal and against the<\/p>\n
    1980   recruitment       Rules     as    also       1983      Rules         and<\/p>\n
    Regulation of 1965 framed under Article 320                          of the<\/p>\n
    Constitution by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
    12.        If the record of the case is perused in the<\/p>\n
    light of these rival submissions, it is clear that<\/p>\n
    the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has written a<\/p>\n
    detail and well reasoned judgment.                  A clear finding<\/p>\n
    has been recorded on each and every relevant aspect<\/p>\n
    of the matter. The Supreme Court has considered the<\/p>\n
    issue regarding regularisation of services in public<\/p>\n
    employment, in the light of the all the relevant<\/p>\n
    previous   judgments       of    the    Supreme      Court,         in     its<\/p>\n
    judgment in the case “Tutu Das” referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                              17<\/span><\/p>\n
    The   observations         of    the          Supreme    Court       found        in<\/p>\n
    paragraph    (12) and (13) of that judgment, in our<\/p>\n
    opinion, are relevant, they read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                “12.         What            was      considered            to        be<\/p>\n
                permissible at a given point of time keeping
\n                in view the decisions of this Court which
\n                had then been operating in the field, does<\/p>\n
                no    longer    hold          good.         Indisputably,           the<\/p>\n
                situation has completely changed in view of
\n                a large number of decisions rendered by this
\n                Court in last 15 years or so.                       It was felt<\/p>\n
                that no appointment should be made contrary
\n                to     the     statutory             provisions          governing
\n                recruitment         or       the    rules     framed       in      that<\/p>\n
                behalf       under       a        statute    or    the       proviso<\/p>\n
                appended to Article 309 of the Constitution
\n                of India.\n<\/p>\n
                13.          Equality              clause      contained              in
\n                Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
\n                India    must       be   given        primacy.         No      policy<\/p>\n
                decision can be taken in terms of Article 77
\n                or Article 162 of the Constitution of India
\n                which        would           run       contrary           to        the
\n                constitutional           or statutory schemes.”\n<\/p>\n
    From the observations quoted above, two things are<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                        18<\/span><\/p>\n
    clear    (i) the State should not make any appointment<\/p>\n
    contrary     to     the     recruitment      rules      framed          under<\/p>\n
    Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and (ii)<\/p>\n
    the State cannot take any policy decision in exercise<\/p>\n
    of its power under Article 77 or Article 162 of the<\/p>\n
    Constitution of India which would run contrary to the<\/p>\n
    constitutional or statutory schemes.                      Now it goes<\/p>\n
    without saying that the rules framed in exercise of<\/p>\n
    power under Article 309 are statutory rules.                           It is<\/p>\n
    evident from the communication from the MPSC dated<\/p>\n
    31.5.1990 and 19.6.1990 which have been relied on by<\/p>\n
    the petitioners that it was the case of the State<\/p>\n
    Government        that    appointment       of   755      Agricultural<\/p>\n
    officers were made under 1980 Rules.                  So far as 1980<\/p>\n
    Rules are concerned they have been quoted verbatim by<\/p>\n
    M.A.T. in paragraph 21 of its judgment.                       Perusal of<\/p>\n
    those rules shows that so far as the appointment to<\/p>\n
    be made by nomination are concerned, they have to be<\/p>\n
    made    after     the     “post    is    advertised       in      official<\/p>\n
    Gazette” and “selection of the candidates is by the<\/p>\n
    service selection board”.               It is to be noted that at<\/p>\n
    the    relevant     time,    the   legislature       of     Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    State had passed an Act for constitution of selection<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                       19<\/span><\/p>\n
    board for recommending candidates for appointment in<\/p>\n
    Class III post under the State Government as also<\/p>\n
    various     other       statutory       authorities          and        local<\/p>\n
    authorities.       Thus, two primary requirements of 1980<\/p>\n
    Rules   were that the post should be                   advertised in<\/p>\n
    official Gazette and candidates should be selected by<\/p>\n
    the Selection Board.            The M.A.T. in paragraph 15 of<\/p>\n
    its judgment has recorded a clear finding that at no<\/p>\n
    stage before making appointment of 755 Agricultural<\/p>\n
    officers,       those    posts    were         advertised          in       the<\/p>\n
    official Gazette. It is also common ground that the<\/p>\n
    appointments        were    made        by     the      Director             of<\/p>\n
    Agricultural after interviewing the candidates                              and<\/p>\n
    the candidates were not selected by the subordinate<\/p>\n
    service selection board. Perusal of 1980 Recruitment<\/p>\n
    Rules which are quoted as observed above in paragraph<\/p>\n
    21 of the M.A.T. shows that those Rules were framed<\/p>\n
    by the State Government in exercise of                         its      power<\/p>\n
    under   Article     308    of    the    Constitution          of      India.\n<\/p>\n
    Thus,     the    appointment       of    all    755       Agricultural<\/p>\n
    officers was contrary to the 1980 Rules which were<\/p>\n
    framed by the State Government in exercise of its<\/p>\n
    power under Article 309 and therefore, were statutory<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                       20<\/span><\/p>\n
    rules. Perusal of the Government Resolution which has<\/p>\n
    been issued by the State Government for the purpose<\/p>\n
    of regularisation of the services of 755 Agricultural<\/p>\n
    Officers shows that it has been issued in exercise of<\/p>\n
    power of the State government under Article 162 of<\/p>\n
    the Constitution of India. A clear finding to that<\/p>\n
    effect    has   been    recorded       by      the   M.A.T.       and       that<\/p>\n
    position is not even disputed before us.                           From the<\/p>\n
    above     discussion,<\/p>\n
                                now     it      is       clear       that        the<\/p>\n
    appointment of 755 Agricultural officers was made in<\/p>\n
    breach of the Statutory Rules.                 The appointments were<\/p>\n
    also contrary to the mandate of Article 14 of the<\/p>\n
    Constitution of India because the appointments were<\/p>\n
    made    without     advertising     the        posts   and       the      State<\/p>\n
    Government used its power under Article 162 of the<\/p>\n
    Constitution of India to regularise what was done in<\/p>\n
    violation of the Statutory rules and Constitution,<\/p>\n
    and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of “Tutu<\/p>\n
    Das”     referred      to   above        and     quoted        above         the<\/p>\n
    Government Resolution         regularising           the     services of<\/p>\n
    755 Agricultural officers is illegal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                           21<\/span><\/p>\n
    13.           Further       perusal       of     the    judgment           of     the<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in the Case “Tu Tu Das” shows that the<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court has considered its judgment in the case<\/p>\n
    of     “Umadevi”         which       is        the     judgment          of        the<\/p>\n
    Constitution Bench of              the         Supreme Court.              In the<\/p>\n
    judgment, the Supreme Court has extensively quoted<\/p>\n
    from    its    judgment       in     the       case     “Umadevi”          and      in<\/p>\n
    paragraph 15 the Supreme Court after referring the<\/p>\n
    judgment in “Umadevi” case has observed thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “15.          Before    considering           the      submission
\n                  of Mr.Roy based upon para 53 of Umadevi(3)
\n                  we     may     notice        that        in     A.Umarani             V.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Registrar, Co-op Societies this Court held:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n         \n\n\n\n                  (SCC p.126, para 45)\n                                \"45. No       regularisation             is,        thus,\n                         permissible           in        exercise           of        the\n\n\n\n\n\n                         statutory            (sic         executive)               power\n                         conferred        under       Article        162       of     the\n<\/pre>\n
                         Constitution if the appointments have<\/p>\n
                         been     made        in     contravention            of      the
\n                         statutory rules.””\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Perusal       of   the     judgment        of    the     M.A.T.        which         is<\/p>\n
    impugned in this petition shows that the M.A.T. has<\/p>\n
    also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                       22<\/span><\/p>\n
    Umarani’s case to hold that exercise of power under<\/p>\n
    Article 162 of the Constitution of India by the State<\/p>\n
    Government in the present case is illegal. It is to<\/p>\n
    be noted here that in view of the regulations framed<\/p>\n
    by   the    State    Government        in    the    year     1965        under<\/p>\n
    Article 320 of the Constitution of India, it could<\/p>\n
    make appointment to the Gazetted post only                             for      a<\/p>\n
    period not exceeding one year.                     From 1.5.1981 the<\/p>\n
    post of Agricultural officer Class II Junior became a<\/p>\n
    Gazetted post and therefore, appointment against the<\/p>\n
    post without a candidate selected and recommended by<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra Public Service Commission could have been<\/p>\n
    made only for a period not exceeding one year, and<\/p>\n
    therefore     by     letter   dated         25.2.1982,          the      State<\/p>\n
    Government directed the Directorate of Agriculture to<\/p>\n
    make appointment in accordance with 1980 Rules for<\/p>\n
    one year or till the candidates recommended by MPSC<\/p>\n
    are made available for appointment. But it is obvious<\/p>\n
    that the Directorate did not follow the direction of<\/p>\n
    the State Government contained in the letter dated<\/p>\n
    25.2.1982 and did not follow the 1980 Rules while<\/p>\n
    making appointments.          However, the appointments were<\/p>\n
    made   by   him     were   only   for       one    year    or    till       the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                          23<\/span><\/p>\n
    candidates     selected         by   MPSC     become        available.          In<\/p>\n
    paragraph 24 the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal<\/p>\n
    has observed thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                      “We     have       noted    from      orders         that       a<\/p>\n
                      condition is incorporated in it whereby
\n                      it is mentioned that all appointments
\n                      made     to        the     post      of     Agricultural<\/p>\n
                      officers are for a period of one year
\n                      or
\n                             till    the       candidate
\n                      from the Commission is made available.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                duly     selected\n\n\n                      Thus,     from       the        documents      placed         on\n                             \n<\/pre>\n
                      record one undisputed fact emerge that
\n                      all    appointments             of   755    Agricultural
\n                      officers           are     temporary         adhoc          and<\/p>\n
                      pending        regular           appointments.             With<\/p>\n
                      these undisputed facts we now consider
\n                      the points raised before us.”\n<\/p>\n
    The Maharashtra Administrative                    Tribunal has, thus,<\/p>\n
    recorded   a     clear    finding          that    appointment         of      all<\/p>\n
    these   755      Agricultural          officers        were      adhoc         and<\/p>\n
    pending regular appointments.\n<\/p>\n
    14.        The         learned         Counsel          appearing             for<\/p>\n
    petitioners heavily relied on the judgment of the<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                         24<\/span><\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in the case “The Direct Recruit Class<\/p>\n
    II Engineering Officers Association and others Vs.<\/p>\n
    State of Maharashtra and others” and specially on<\/p>\n
    paragraph    44(B)     of    that        judgment     which          reads        as<\/p>\n
    under:-\n<\/p>\n
                     “44(B)        If the initial appointment is<\/p>\n
                     not    made       by    following          the      procedure
\n                     laid     igdown        by    the    rules            but       the
\n                     appointee          continues         in           the         post
\n                     uninterruptedly till the regularisation<\/p>\n
                     of his service in accordance with the
\n                     rules,       the        period       of         officiating
\n                     service will be counted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The learned Counsel submits that assuming that the<\/p>\n
    appointment of 755 Agricultural officers was not made<\/p>\n
    following the procedure laid down by 1980 Rules, but<\/p>\n
    as they have continued in the post uninterruptedly<\/p>\n
    till the time of regularisation of their services,<\/p>\n
    period of their officiation in the post has to be<\/p>\n
    taken     into   consideration.              In     our      opinion,            the<\/p>\n
    submission of the learned Counsel is not sound. In<\/p>\n
    making     appointment      of     755       Agricultural            Officers,<\/p>\n
    there was illegality in the sense that there was not<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                           25<\/span><\/p>\n
    only     procedural         defect     but       the     defect         was       of<\/p>\n
    substance, because before                  their appointments, they<\/p>\n
    were     not    selected       by     the       authority         which          was<\/p>\n
    contemplated by the 1980 Rules and the post was also<\/p>\n
    not advertised in the official Gazette.                                Secondly<\/p>\n
    paragraph       44(B)        contemplates             regularisation              of<\/p>\n
    services of those appointees in accordance with the<\/p>\n
    Rules.        Therefore, it implies that the Rules have<\/p>\n
    provision      for<\/p>\n
                           regularisation            of     the    services           of<\/p>\n
    employees who have been irregularly appointed. In the<\/p>\n
    present case, admittedly, in the 1980 Rules neither<\/p>\n
    there    is    any    provision       for       regularisation           of      the<\/p>\n
    appointments          nor     there        is     any     provision              for<\/p>\n
    relaxation of any of the condition laid down in the<\/p>\n
    Rules.     In our opinion, therefore, in this view of<\/p>\n
    the    matter,       the    appropriate         direction        which         will<\/p>\n
    apply is one which contained in paragraph 44(A) of<\/p>\n
    the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above<\/p>\n
    in the case of “Direct Recruit Class II Engineering<\/p>\n
    Officers       Association”.               Paragraph44(A)             of       that<\/p>\n
    judgment reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                         “44(A)     Once an incumbent is appointed<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                           26<\/span><\/p>\n
                       to     a   post        according           to    rule,         his<\/p>\n
                       seniority has to be counted from the
\n                       date       of     his         appointment          and        not<\/p>\n
                       according          to         the      date         of        his
\n                       confirmation.                The    corollary          of     the
\n                       above rule is that where the initial<\/p>\n
                       appointment            is    only     ad    hoc      and      not
\n                       according to rules and made as stop-gap
\n                       arrangement,            the    officiation           in      such<\/p>\n
                       post cannot be taken into account for
\n                       considering the seniority.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In the present case also the initial appointment of<\/p>\n
    all 755 Agricultural officers was only ad-hoc and was<\/p>\n
    not made in accordance with the Rules and was made as<\/p>\n
    stop-gap arrangement till the candidates selected by<\/p>\n
    Public     Service        Commission            become        available           and<\/p>\n
    therefore, their officiation in such posts cannot be<\/p>\n
    taken     into      consideration               for      considering             the<\/p>\n
    seniority.       The Supreme Court in its judgment in the<\/p>\n
    case “Keshav Chandra Joshi Vs. Union of India, AIR<\/p>\n
    1991     Supreme    Court          284”        referred       to    above         has<\/p>\n
    considered the directions issued by the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
    in its judgment in the “”Direct Recruit Class II<\/p>\n
    Engineering Officers Association”.                        The observations<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                     27<\/span><\/p>\n
    made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 24 and 25 of<\/p>\n
    that judgment, in our opinion, are relevant. They<\/p>\n
    read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “24.            In Direct Recruits’ Case (1990<\/p>\n
                 (2)SCC      715:        AIR     1990       SC      1607)        the
\n                 Constitution            Bench       of    this       Court        in
\n                 which one of us (K.Ramaswamy, J.) was a<\/p>\n
                 member, in propositions “A” & “B” in
\n                 paragraph   ig    47     at    page
\n                 (Para 44, at p.1627 of AIR) stated:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                           745      (of       SCC):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        “(A) Once an incumbent is appointed<\/p>\n
                 to     a   post         according         to       rule,        his
\n                 seniority has to be counted from the
\n                 date       of     his         appointment             and       not<\/p>\n
                 according          to         the        date         of        his<\/p>\n
                 confirmation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        The corollary of the above rule is
\n                 that where the initial appointment is<\/p>\n
                 only ad hoc and not according to rules
\n                 and made as stop gap arrangement, the
\n                 officiation            to     such       post      cannot         be<\/p>\n
                 taken into account for considering the
\n                 seniority.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                        (B) If the initial appointment is\n                 not    made       by    following           the      procedure\n                 laid       down        by     the        rules        but       the\n                 appointee          continues             in        the         post\n<\/pre>\n
                 uninterruptedly till the regularisation<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                           28<\/span><\/p>\n
      of his service in accordance with the<\/p>\n
      rules,        the        period         of      officiating
\n      service will be counted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      M\/s.Mukhoty and Garg repeatedly asked
\n      us to apply the ratio in the cases of
\n      Narendra        Chadha         (AIR      1986       SC      638),<\/p>\n
      Baleshwar        Das       (AIR    1981        SC     41)       and
\n      Chauhan       (AIR       1977     SC    251)      contending
\n      that    the     promotees         were        appointed          to<\/p>\n
      the same post, are discharging the same
\n      duties,  ig     drawing          the         same        salary,
\n      therefore, they should be deemed to be
\n      given        promotion          from      their          initial<\/p>\n
      dates of appointment.                    We express our
\n      inability to travel beyond the ratio in
\n      Direct          Recruits’              Case.                While<\/p>\n
      reiterating          insistence          upon       adherence<\/p>\n
      to     the    rule        that     seniority             between
\n      direct recruits and the promotees has
\n      to   be      from        the    respective          dates         of<\/p>\n
      appointment, this Court noticed that in
\n      certain cases, Government by deliberate
\n      disregard of the rules promotions were
\n      made      and    allowed          the        promotees           to<\/p>\n
      continue for well over 15 to 20 years
\n      without         reversion              and        thereafter
\n      seniority is sought to be fixed from
\n      the date of ad hoc appointment.                                  In
\n      order to obviate unjust and inequitious
\n      results, this Court was constrained to<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                          29<\/span><\/p>\n
      evolve      “rule       of    deemed        relaxation          of<\/p>\n
      the    relevant          rules”       and    directed           to
\n      regularise         the        services        giving          the<\/p>\n
      entire length of temporary service from
\n      the    date    of       initial        appointment            for
\n      seniority.               To      lay        down       binding<\/p>\n
      precedent the cases were referred to a
\n      Constitution            Bench.         In    the     Director
\n      Recruits’      case,          this     Court       has       laid<\/p>\n
      down       clear        propositions          of       general
\n      application
\n               ig             in      items         A       to        K.\n<\/p>\n
      Therefore, to keep the law clear and
\n      certain and to avoid any slant, we are<\/p>\n
      of the considered view that it is not
\n      expedient to hark back into the past
\n      precedents and we prefer to adhere to<\/p>\n
      the    ratio       laid       down      in     the        Direct<\/p>\n
      Recruits’ case.\n<\/p>\n
      25.           As stated, the Counsel for the
\n      promotees       placed         strong        reliance           on<\/p>\n
      proposition “B” while the counsel for
\n      the        “Direct        Recruits”            relied           on
\n      proposition “A”.              The controversy is as
\n      to     which    of       the        propositions           would<\/p>\n
      apply to the facts of this case. The
\n      proposition “A” lays down that once an
\n      incumbent          is     appointed          to       a      post
\n      according to rules, his seniority has
\n      to    be    counted          from    the     date      of     his
\n      appointment         and       not    according         to     the<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                          30<\/span><\/p>\n
      date    of    his       confirmation.          The      latter<\/p>\n
      part thereof amplifies postulating that
\n      where the initial appointment is only<\/p>\n
      ad hoc and not according to rules and
\n      is made as a stop-gap arrangement, the
\n      period       of    officiation           in     such        post<\/p>\n
      cannot       be     taken       into       account            for
\n      reckoning seniority.                The quintessence
\n      of     the        propositions          is       that        the<\/p>\n
      appointment to a post must be according
\n      to rules and not by way of ad hoc or<\/p>\n
      stop-gap          arrangement          made         due        to
\n      administrative            exigencies.                If       the<\/p>\n
      initial      appointment           thus      made     was      de
\n      hors the rules, the entire length of
\n      such     service         cannot     be        counted        for<\/p>\n
      seniority.               In     other          words         the<\/p>\n
      appointee would become a member of the
\n      service       in    the       substantive           capacity
\n      from the date of his appointment only<\/p>\n
      if the appointment was made according
\n      to rules and seniority would be counted
\n      only from that date.                Propositions “A”
\n      and “B” cover different aspects of one<\/p>\n
      situation.              One     must       discern           the
\n      difference critically.               Proposition “B”<\/p>\n
\n      must,    therefore,           be    read       along        with\n      para    13    of    the       judgment        wherein        the\n<\/pre>\n
      ratio decidendi of Narendra Chadha was
\n      held to have considerable force.                              The<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                        31<\/span><\/p>\n
      latter postulated that if the initial<\/p>\n
      appointment        to      a    substantive            post     or
\n      vacancy      was        made         deliberately,              in<\/p>\n
      disregard of the rule and allowed the
\n      incumbent to continue on the post for
\n      well     over     15       to     20       years       without<\/p>\n
      reversion        and       still           the     date         of
\n      regularisation             of        the     service            in
\n      accordance with the rules, the period<\/p>\n
      of     officiating             service       has        to       be
\n      counted towards seniority.\n<\/p>\n
               ig                                      This Court
\n      in Narendra Chadha’s case was cognizant
\n      of the fact that the rules empower the<\/p>\n
      Government         to      relax           the      rule        of
\n      appointment.          Without reading paragraph
\n      13    and    Proposition             “B”    and        Narendra<\/p>\n
      Chadha’s ratio together the true import<\/p>\n
      of     the      proposition            would           not      be
\n      appreciated.          We       would    deal       with       the
\n      exercise of power of relaxing the rule<\/p>\n
      later.                After          giving            anxious
\n      consideration, we are of the view that
\n      the    latter      half         of     Proposition            “A”\n<\/p>\n
      would apply to the facts of the case<\/p>\n
      and the rule laid down in that half is
\n      to be followed. If the concerned rules
\n      provide the procedure to fix inter se
\n      seniority between direct recruits and
\n      promotees,       the       seniority             has     to     be
\n      determined in that manner.”\n<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                           32<\/span><\/p>\n
    It is      clear from the observations of the Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court quoted above that the directions contained in<\/p>\n
    paragraph 44(B) of the judgment of the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
    in   the    case     “Direct    Recruit       Class   II     Engineering<\/p>\n
    Officers Association” will amply apply in case where<\/p>\n
    appointment        is   made     by    the    State     Government            in<\/p>\n
    relaxation of the quota deliberately, and in the Rule<\/p>\n
    there is power given to the Government to relax the<\/p>\n
    Rules. In the present case it is the direction of the<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in paragraph 44(A) which will apply<\/p>\n
    because as observed above neither in the 1980 Rules<\/p>\n
    nor in 1983 Rules there is any provision to relax the<\/p>\n
    Rules.       As      observed          above,     the        Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    Administrative Tribunal has, in its well considered<\/p>\n
    judgment, considered all the relevant aspects of the<\/p>\n
    matter, and after having heard the learned Counsel<\/p>\n
    appearing for both the sides for considerable length<\/p>\n
    of time      we have not been able to find any reason to<\/p>\n
    set aside the order of the Maharashtra Administrative<\/p>\n
    Tribunal      striking        down    the     Government       Resolution<\/p>\n
    under      Article      162    of     the    Constitution        of      India<\/p>\n
    regularising         the      services       of   755      Agricultural<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>
\n                               33<\/span><\/p>\n
    officers.   In our opinion, there is no merit in both<\/p>\n
    the petitions. Both the petitions therefore fail and<\/p>\n
    are dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
        At the request of the learned Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
    for petitioners, it is directed that for a period of<\/p>\n
    eight weeks from today, whatever interim order is<\/p>\n
    presently operating, shall continue to operate.\n<\/p>\n
                        ig          (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)\n                      \n                                    (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)\n         \n      \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:55:22 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More vs Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje on 30 September, 2008 Bench: D.K. Deshmukh, J.P. Devadhar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6380 OF 2006 1.Shri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More and others. …Petitioners vs. 1.Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje and others. …Respondents. — Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar with N.V.Bandiwadekar, for Petitioners. […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43482","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More vs Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje on 30 September, 2008 - 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\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More vs Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-12T18:06:04+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More vs Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje on 30 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-12T18:06:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5325,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Shri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More vs Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-12T18:06:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More vs Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje on 30 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More vs Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje on 30 September, 2008 - 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\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More vs Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-12T18:06:04+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More vs Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje on 30 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-12T18:06:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008"},"wordCount":5325,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008","name":"Shri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More vs Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-12T18:06:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-balasaheb-chandrarao-more-vs-shri-suresh-kisanrao-porje-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri.Balasaheb Chandrarao More vs Shri.Suresh Kisanrao Porje on 30 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/43482","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=43482"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43482\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43482"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43482"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43482"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}