DATTATRAYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were appointed as Agriculture Supervisors/Extension Officers (Agriculture) in Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur some time in the year 1970-71 except petitioner no.8, who was appointed in the year 1975. Petitioner nos.1 to 7 were promoted as Agriculture Officers on the following dates. <p><table class = tablestyle width="50%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="font-family:Verdana"> <tr> <td width="11%" valign="top"><div align="center"><strong>Sr.<br /> No.</strong></div></td> <td width="52%" valign="top"><div align="center"><strong>Petitioner</strong></div></td> <td width="37%" valign="top"><div align="center"><strong>Date of Promotion<br /> </strong></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"><div align="center">1.</div></td> <td valign="top"><div align="center">Petitioner No.1</div></td> <td valign="top"><div align="center">09/12/1991</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"><div align="center">2.</div></td> <td valign="top"><div align="center">Petitioner No.2</div></td> <td valign="top"><div align="center">17/06/1983</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"><div align="center">3.</div></td> <td valign="top"><div align="center">Petitioner No.3</div></td> <td valign="top"><div align="center">02/11/1991</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"><div align="center">4.</div></td> <td valign="top"><div align="center">Petitioner No.4</div></td> <td valign="top"><div align="center">03/11/1993</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"><div align="center">5.</div></td> <td valign="top"><div align="center">Petitioner No.5</div></td> <td valign="top"><div align="center">03/11/1993</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"><div align="center">6.</div></td> <td valign="top"><div align="center">Petitioner No.6</div></td> <td valign="top"><div align="center">03/11/1993</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"><div align="center">7.</div></td> <td valign="top"><div align="center">Petitioner No.7</div></td> <td valign="top"><div align="center">30/05/1998</div></td> </tr> </table>

(2.) Petitioner no.8 was not promoted purportedly on account of some departmental proceedings against him. According to the petitioners, the next promotional post is in the Maharashtra Development Services Class-II (Gazetted) (M.D.S. Class II for short). Upon being promoted in the said service, the petitioners were entitled to be posted as Block Development Officers, which is a gazetted post. The said promotion, according to the petitioners, could be granted to the employees holding the post in any of the eight services as set out in Paragraph no.3 of the petition, which includes District Technical Service (Class-III) (Agriculture), to which the petitioners belonged. As per communication dated 20.6.1979 (AnnexureE) the Assistant Secretary in the Rural Development Department had asked all Chief Executive Officers of the Zilla Parishads to prepare a seniority list of the Zilla Parishad employees for appointment by selection to the Class-II post in the M.D.S. The said communication sets out in all six services from which such promotion can be given, which again includes the District Technical Service (Class-III) (Agriculture) (D.T.S. for short) to which the petitioners belonged. The communication contemplated option being communicated by the concerned employees through the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad relinquishing his claim, if any, being considered for appointment by selection to Class-II post in "another such service". This was in pursuance to Rule 9 (b) of the Maharashtra Development Service (Constitution, Class-Ification and Recruitment) Rules, 1973 (Rules of 1973 for short) as amended w.e.f. 1.4.1979. The said options were to be given by 14.8.1979. The Chief Executive Officers of the Zilla Parishads were then supposed to furnish the information to the Divisional Commissioners concerned not later than 18.7.179. It is undisputed that the petitioners had given options on 11.8.1979.

(3.) Respondent nos.4 to 16 were appointed directly by nomination to the District Technical Service (Class III), after 14.8.1979 and as such these respondents could not have given any option prior to 14.8.1979 as required by the communication at Annexure-E. Their options were called subsequently by concerned C.E.O. of the Zilla Parishad. The contention of the petitioners is that the Divisional Commissioner, in his own discretion, could not have allowed the change of the said date, as set out by the State Government. However, the seniority list dated 1.1.1998 came to be sent by the Agriculture Development Officer of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur directly to the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur without the knowledge or concurrence of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. It is contended that the Divisional Commissioner without application of mind accepted the same. In the said seniority list, respondent nos.4 to 16 have been included and shown seniors, although they were not eligible to be considered as having not furnished the required option prior to 14.8.1979.