RAJENDRA PANDURANG PAGARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties. Since the issues involved in both these petitions are the same, they have been heard together, with the consent of the parties.

(2.) The challenge in both these petitions is to the selection of the private respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) to the posts of Civil Engineering Assistants, pursuant to the advertisement No. 2/2008. The petitioners claim that these respondents did not possess the qualifications required for being selected to the posts of the Civil Engineering Assistants, in consonance with the recruitment rules. The petitioners contend that each of them had undertaken a special course expected to be completed by candidates aspiring to be Civil Engineering Assistants, whereas the respondents had no such qualification. In essence, therefore, what has been challenged in the present petition, is the selection of the respondents to the posts of the Civil Engineering Assistants.

(3.) Mr. Khandare, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State and its officers, who are arraigned as the respondents in the petitions, and Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petitions. They pointed out that the petitioners ought to have approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, to have their grievance redressed, rather than preferring writ petitions in this court, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. They have relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India and others, 1997 3 SCC 261, wherein a bench of seven learned judges has held that the only remedy available to employees challenging the recruitment rules for posts in State Govt., or with respect to any service matter, is to file an application before the Administrative Tribunal, under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Counsel therefore, submitted that the writ petitions ought to be dismissed in limine.