VIKRANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dtd. 02/01/2023, issued by the respondent - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), by which the respondent Nos.4 to 12 are promoted to the post of Assistant (Class-III) in ignorance of the seniority of the petitioner, by virtue of their continuous officiation.

(3.) Mr. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent ' MHADA had issued advertisement dtd. 29/08/2008 inviting applications for filling up 121 posts including posts of clerk. The said advertisement contains various stipulations including Stipulation Nos.12 and 13, which specify that the candidates belonging to reserved category will be appointed subject to submission of caste validity certificate and its verification by the concerned Committees. Accordingly, the petitioners herein were appointed in the year 2010, whereas the respondent Nos.4 to 12 are concerned, the appointments were issued at a deferred juncture i.e. in 2013. So far as the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they were appointed on 11/11/2010, whereas petitioner No.3 was appointed on 20/04/2011. Appointments of respondent Nos.4 to 12 were deferred on account of the fact that they belong to reserved category on respective dates of appointment. As such, in the wake of mandate of Clause 13 of the advertisement till the respective respondents were armed with the caste certificate and its validity, their appointments were deferred.