SHRIKANT RAMDAS KARKALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition the judgment and order dated 18 th July, 2025 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) Mumbai in Original Application (OA) No.1370 of 2024 instituted by the Respondent No.2 herein as Original Applicant, has been put under challenge by contending that the impugned order suffers from serious legal infirmities warranting interference by this Court.

(2.) The facts of the case, as apparent from the record, in a nutshell, are that pursuant to the recommendation dated 21 st August, 2024 made by the Civil Service Board (CSB), the Writ Petitioner herein along with the Respondent No.2 and other eligible departmental candidates were promoted to the post of "Joint Commissioner (Food)-cum-Adjudication Officer, Group-A". The CSB had also recommended that Pursuant to their promotion, the Respondent No.2 be posted at Thane and the Writ Petitioner at Amaravati. It appears that such recommendations were made by CSB by taking note of the options exercised by the respective candidates. However, the recommendation of CSB was overruled by the Departmental Minister i.e. the Minister-in-charge of Medical Education and Drugs Department and by issuing the impugned order dtd. 9/10/2024 by means of which, the Writ Petitioner was posted at Thane and the Respondent No.2/Original Applicant at Nashik. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent No 2 as applicant had preferred O.A. No 1370 of 2024 which was allowed by the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order dtd. 18/7/2025, thus interfering with the order dated 9 th October, 2024 in so far as the same seeks to override the recommendations made by the CSB in its meeting held on 19 th August, 2024 assigning places of posting to the promotee Officer. The learned MAT was of the view that no reason whatsoever, has been furnished by the Hon'ble Minister-in-charge of the Department for overruling the recommendations of the CSB. As such, the impugned order dtd. 9/10/2024 was un- sustainable in law.

(3.) By placing reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors., (2013)15 SCC 732. as well as the Government Resolution (GR) issued by the State of Maharashtra dtd. 31/1/2024 embodying the administrative instructions issued in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. (supra), the learned MAT has held that although the Departmental Minister has wide powers in these matters including the power to disagree with the recommendation of the CSB yet, in case of disagreement with recommendations of the CSB, proper reasons must be recorded by the Minister. In the absence of reasons recorded, the decision of the Departmental Minister, to override the recommendation of the CSB, was not permissible in law. It was, therefore, held that the impugned order of posting dtd. 9/10/2024 was vitiated by complete arbitrariness. The OA filed by the Respondent No.2 was thus, allowed by the learned MAT with the following order and direction:-