LAXMIKANT SAMBHAJI KHADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.274 of 2018 dtd. 26/6/2019 thereby dismissing the said Original Application preferred by the petitioner. In the said Original Application, the petitioner had challenged the decision of the respondent No.2-Maharashtra Public Service Commission (for short, 'the MPSC') by which the petitioner was held ineligible for appointment on the post of Chief Administrative Officer, Group-A.

(3.) The MPSC issued an advertisement dtd. 7/2/2014 calling for applications for filling in the post of Chief Administrative Officer, Group-A. Under the said advertisement, the educational qualification required was having a degree or any other equivalent qualification recognized by the State Government, possessing executive or administrative experience or both for a period of not less than seven years gained in a Government department, commercial concern, local authority or a corporation. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the Directorate of Health Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2002 (for short, 'the Rules of 2002'), the requirements for the post of Chief Administrative Officer, Group-A and Administrative Officer, Group-B have been prescribed. Despite possessing requisite qualification, the petitioner was held ineligible for being considered for the post of Chief Administrative Officer, Group-A. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the light of the qualification prescribed by the Directorate of Health Services, the petitioner has been held ineligible. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal held against the petitioner on two counts, namely that the petitioner had furnished wrong information while indicating his experience in service. It was stated by the petitioner that he was in the office of the Taluka Inspector of Land Records from 21/9/2006 to 7/7/2009. He had also stated that he was serving at the Government Polytechnic from 9/6/2009 to 17/1/2012. Since the aforesaid period was overlapping, the finding was recorded that the petitioner had furnished wrong information. Another ground assigned by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is that since the post of Chief Administrative Officer, Group-A was a promotional post in comparison to the post of Administrative Officer, Group-B, the petitioner did not have the required experience. On these counts, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Original Application.