SHALIGRAM SITARAM BHATKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the supersession of the petitioners and promotions of those whose names appear in Annexure 1 dated 6-6-1984, as also the vires of sub-Rules (2) of Rule 1 and (a) of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Tahsildars (Recruitment) Rules, 1989.

(2.) Petitioners joined the Subordinate Revenue Service (SRS) and the details of their career are set out in Annexure A being a part of the petition compilation. Respondents Nos. 4 to 18 also joined the SRS at different times. The SRS included Naib Tahsildar, Awal Karkun, First Grade Clerks and Assistant Superintendents. For promotion to the next higher cadre of Tahsildars, all ranks of the SRS were eligible. Promotion to the post of Tahsildars is done through the M.P.S.C. By the G.R. No. RCT-1259/130952-G dated 19th November, 1959, the Government in the Revenue Department formulated recruitment Rules for the post of Mamlatdars including Tahsildars. Apart from the nominees, the post could be filled up by promotion "From among members of the Subordinate Revenue Service including Naib-Tahsildars." Petitioners in June, 1984, were functioning as Assistant Superintendents. Respondents Nos. 4 to 18 were then working as Naib-Tahsildars. Their service details are set out at Annexure J. By Annexure I dated 6-6-1984, respondents Nos. 4 to 18 were promoted to the Tahsildars cadre without considering the claims or eligibility of the petitioners. In the SRS, respondents Nos. 4 to 18 are junior to the petitioners. Admittedly, petitioners were excluded from the area of consideration on the limited ground that they were not Naib-Tahsildars.

(3.) Petitioners contend that being members of the SRS, the different categories such as N.T., A.Ks. and Assistant Superintendent were equal in rank as also pay. The services were interchangable and it depended upon the exigencies of the situation as to where and when a N.T. was to work as Assistant Superintendent or a N.T. Several instances of such interchangeability had occurred in the past and a few of them were quoted in the petition. The non-consideration of petitioners for the post of Tahsildars, was arbitrary and irrational. The first three respondents in their initial return, contended that though Assistant Superintendents received the same salary as Naib-Tahsildars, the work being done by the two categories, was entirely different. The Assistant Superintendents were doing a purely desk job whereas Naib-Tahsildars had to work in the field and this work was of a diverse character. It was for these reasons that Naib-Tahsildars alone were considered fit for promotion to the post of Tahsildars. Without even amending the return, the respondents came forthwith Maharashtra Tahsildars (Recruitment) Rules, 1989, which Rules by Rule 4, restricted the area of consideration for the post of promote Tahsildars to persons holding the post of Naib-Tahsildars having not less than three years service in Class III service in the Awal Karkun and Naib-Tahsildar cadres taken together. These Rules published in the Gazette dated 27th April, 1989, have been given retrospective effect vide Rule 1(2) as from 17th March, 1982. The plea is that having regard to the retrospective operation of the 1989 Rules, the promotions given to respondents Nos. 4 to 18 are unvulnerable.