ISHWAR DAMU KAMBLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these writ petitions raise challenge to the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench dated 18/09/2017 in Original Application No.562/2016, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The claim of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2665/2018 of being senior in service than the fourth respondent arises for adjudication in this writ petition. While the petitioners contend that the fourth respondent was not eligible to be promoted pursuant to passing the examination on 13/01/1992 on the basis of which the seniority list of the years 1991 and 1992 was wrongly prepared, the fourth respondent contends that by not objecting to the said seniority lists for a period of more than fifteen years, the petitioners have acquiesced to the same.

(3.) The facts relevant for adjudicating the rival claims are that the fourth respondent (P. T. Sonawane) came to be appointed on the post of Radio Mechanic (Assistant Police Wireless Sub Inspector) on 10/08/1984. He was promoted as Sub Inspector, Wireless on 30/05/1990. He passed the Radio Mechanic-Class II examination on 13/01/1992. The petitioners ( Ishwar Damu Kamble and Sanjay Maroti Khande) came to be appointed on 19/04/1991 on the post of Sub Inspector, Wireless. The seniority list for the year 1991 was published on 13/11/1991 and that for the year 1992 was published on 06/10/1992. The fourth respondent was shown as senior to both the petitioners. Thereafter the fourth respondent was further promoted to the post of Police Wireless Inspector and then to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Wireless. He was further promoted as Superintendent of Police, Wireless on 07/04/2010. The second petitioner on 08/09/2005 made a representation with a grievance that the seniority of the fourth respondent had been wrongly determined and he had been shown senior to the second petitioner. He having passed the qualifying examination on 13/01/1992 his promotion by virtue of the order dated 30/05/1990 was temporary in nature. The fourth respondent held the promotional post fortuitously and the petitioners having joined service on 19/04/1991 on the post of Wireless Sub Inspector they were senior to the fourth respondent. This representation was rejected on 04/03/2006 on the ground that the same was made belatedly.