SHIRISH SURESH THATTE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally at admission stage.

(2.) In May 2005, the petitioner came to be appointed as a junior clerk on the establishment of respondent No.4 the District and Sessions Court, Parbhani, after undergoing the due selection process consisting of written test and oral interview both. Since then the petitioner continued to work substantially on the establishment of respondent No.4.

(3.) According to the petitioner, while he was working on the establishment of respondent No.4 as a junior clerk, respondent No.3 The Assistant Director of Public Prosecutor, published an advertisement for filling up various posts. One of the post advertised was of Stenographer (Lower Grade) English, which was shown unreserved. However, in the advertisement, the preference has been stated to be given to the candidate from the category of Ex- serviceman for the said post. The petitioner has submitted his application in response to the said advertisement for the post of Stenographer (L.G.), which was having substantially higher pay scale qua the post, which the petitioner was holding i.e. junior clerk. The petitioner had submitted his candidature through proper channel to respondent No.3 for being considered for appointment on the post of Stenographer (L.G.) English. Though the petitioner was selected and placed at Sr. No.1 in the order of merit for the post of Stenographer (L.G.) English, however, he was not offered appointment by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Consequently, the petitioner had approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad for asserting his right to the said post. It was for the first time, respondent No.3 asserted before the Tribunal that the post in question is earmarked for Ex-serviceman although in the advertisement mere preference was stated. However, the Tribunal had directed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Stenographer (L.G.) English till the availability of Exserviceman candidate. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 assailed the said decision of the Tribunal before this Court, however, the said challenge was failed. Thereafter, respondent No.2 had issued an order of appointment dated 25.2.2011 thereby appointing the petitioner as a Stenographer (L.G.) English by highlighting a covenant in the order of appointment that as per the decision of the Tribunal, the post since been reserved for Ex-serviceman category, the services would be continued till the availability of Ex-serviceman candidate and soon upon availability of ex-serviceman candidate, petitioner's services shall be brought to an end without notice. The respondent No.4 was thus to relieve the petitioner for joining pursuant to the said appointment vide communication dated 4.3.2011 and in furtherance thereof, respondent No.3 issued an office order on 5.3.2011 thereby allowing the petitioner to join the duty as Stenographer (L.G.) English. Accordingly, the petitioner had joined on 5.3.2011 itself on the establishment of respondent No.3 as Stenographer (L.G.).