TANTRIK SHIKSHAN KARMACHARI SANGHATNA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Mardikar, Advocate for petitioners and Mrs. Bharati Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents. We have also perused orders passed by this Court from time to time, including the order dated 06.05.2011 and 12.10.2011.

(2.) Facts show that members of petitioner association working as Workshop Attendant earlier with Director of Vocation and Training had no channel of promotion. In a meeting conducted on 23.12.1993, it was decided to reserve 25% posts in the cadre of Instructor and to promote Workshop Attendant against those posts. This is also recognized in order dated 24.11.1995 issued by Director of Vocation and Training. Some members of petitioner association were accordingly promoted on purely temporary basis.

(3.) It appears that the department was initially bifurcated and thereafter and petitioners came under Director of Vocational. Their counterparts who continued working under the Director of Training, had and still have a promotional channel. However, in recruitment rules and service conditions of Workshop Attendant under Director of Vocation, there is no such channel and it is only because of above mentioned meeting and communication dated 24.11.1995 the members of petitioner association received the benefit of promotion. However, the Directorate on 13.01.2003, held that since these promotions granted without amending recruitment rules unsustainable. It appears that the modified rules did not receive approval from State Government and hence on 13.01.2003 the Director refused to regularize the promotions already granted. Thereafter reversion orders came to be issued. Petitioner association then approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.52/2003 and in that Original Application, interim relief was granted. But ultimately the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal found that promotions granted were contrary to recruitment rules, and hence dismissed Original Application. Thereafter present petition has been filed. In this writ petition interim order has been passed for the first time on 21.07.2003. While issuing Rule, this Court quoted that an advertisement for direct recruitment Instructor was published on 19.07.2003 and hence members of petitioner association, then occupying the post by promotion, were permitted to continue till they were replaced. This order has been modified when it was pointed out to Court that there was no advertisement dated 19.07.2003.