CHARAN PARASHRAMJI MESHRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is presently working as Joint Director of animal husbandry, in the Maharashtra Animal husbandry services under Respondent no. 2, pune. The petitioner holds qualification of b. Sc. (Agriculture) and was initially appointed as Assistant Fodder Development Officer on 7th april, 1972 in Animal Husbandry Department of Respondent no. 1. Thereafter he was promoted as Fodder Development Officer and subsequently to the post of Deputy Director of animal Husbandry (Feed and Fodder). It is the case of the petitioner that the posts in which he works have separate seniority lists and provides for promotion channels upto the post of Deputy director (Fodder) of Animal Husbandry. In the same cadre there are other employees in the maharashtra Animal Husbandry Services possessing qualification of B. V. Sc. or equivalent, and their seniority and channels were also separate upto the post of Deputy director of Animal Husbandry under maharashtra Animal Husbandry Services cadre. The next higher post is of Joint Director of Animal Husbandry. As the petitioner was not considered for the said post he filed O. A. No. 345 of 1992 challenging his non-consideration. His O. A. was allowed and direction was issued to revise seniority lists and include the names of person like petitioner even if they do not have veterinary qualification. A further direction was issued for holding a review of the departmental promotion. That judgment consequent to challenges being rejected was implemented and the petitioner was promoted along with other Officers to the post of Joint director. The order was issued on 31 st January, 1997 but it was agreed to give a deemed date of promotion to the post of Joint Director with effect from 1994. The next promotional post is that of Additional Director of Animal husbandry.

(2.) Recruitment to the post of additional Director of Animal Husbandry was based on the rules dated 16th October, 1989. In terms of the said rules posts have to be filled in either by promotion of a suitable person on the basis of positive merit from amongst the persons holding the post of Joint Director of animal Husbandry in Maharashtra Animal husbandry Services Class I or by appointment of a member of IAS Cadre as per the Rules framed under Article 309 of Constitution of india. It is the case of the petitioner that he being the senior most was eligible for consideration for promotion. Mr. P. S. Malkhede who was working as Additional director of Animal Husbandry superannuated from 31 st January, 1997 and as such a vacancy arose to thut post from 1 st February, 1997. The case of the petitioner is that as such the said post had to be filled in by promotion with effect from 1st February, 1997 itself. The Respondent no. 1 due to some vested interest did not convene dpc meeting to fill up the post of Additional director of Animal Husbandry in February, 1997. The petitioner submitted a representation to Respondent no. 1 for consideration. No action was taken and the petitioner was holding additional charge of the post of Additional director. It is the petitioner's case that it was on account of pressure brought on the respondent no. 1 by the other Veterinary officers, who did not want that the petitioner to be promoted. On account of failure by the respondent to fill in the post, the petitioner preferred O. A. No. 221 of 1997 before MAT. During the pendency of the application respondent no. l was pleased to issue fresh recruitment rules dated 6th November, 1997 also under Article 309 of the Constitution of india. The new rule superseded the earlier rules of 1982 as amended in 1989 for recruitment of post of Additional Director of Animal husbandry. Under the new rules the eligibility qualifications were set out. The Petitioner would not be eligible. According to the petitioner the rules were made prospective from 6th November, 1997. The Tribunal after hearing the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 2 and considering the contention as advanced dismissed O. A. subsequent to that the respondent no. 1 issued an order promoting respondent no. 3 as Joint Director of Animal husbandry who according to the petitioner is admittedly junior to him by following the recruitment rules of 1997. Petitioner contends that his supersession is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) On behalf of respondent no. l a reply has been filed by Mrs. Aquella A. Phatarpekar, Deputy Secretary to the government of Maharashtra in the department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy development and Fisheries Department, mantralaya. It is therein set out thut after adverting to the earlier O. A. the Government in 1995 took a conscious decision to revise the existing recruitment rules for appointment to the post of Assistant Director, Deputy Director, joint Director and Additional Directory Animal husbandry. The rules were framed in consultation amongst others with the maharashtra Public Services Commission. They have received approval of Governor of maharashtra. It is based on these rules that Dr. V. V. Deshpande was promoted and took charge with effect from 22nd November, 1998. In sum and substance it is submitted that in the light of the conscious decision, taken by the government not to fill post of Additional director till recruitment rules are amended, that decision cannot be turned arbitrary and unreasonable. It is pointed out that the Tribunal on perusal of the documents has recorded a finding of fact that the conscious policy decision had been taken by the Government in the year 1995 itself bearing in mind certain factual aspects and keeping in mind administrative and public interest to fill up the post of Additional technical Director with officers possessing degree in Veterinary Science. While taking such conscious decision, the Government considered the nature of duties and the general set-up of the department and decided to fill in the post from amongst technical officers possessing degree of Veterinary Science. The amended rules came into force on publication on 6th September, 1997. The Government however waited for the outcome of the proceedings before MAT. For all the above said reasons and other averments as set out in the reply, it is set out that the petition be dismissed.