CHANDRAKANT SAKHARAM KARKHANIS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three questions referred to our Full Bench by the Division Bench are these;

(2.) Though three questions as set out above have been referred to this Bench, in our view, the substantial question that needs an answer is the first one, the other two being of ancillary character.

(3.) At the outset it may be observed that these questions arise out of more or less a perpetual dispute going on between direct recruits end promotees in the Secretariat departments of the Government of Maharashtra. The dispute to some extent is aggravated by apparently inconsistent or conflicting circulars, orders or resolutions issued from time to time. In order to appreciate how these questions have arisen for determination it would be sufficient if the facts pertaining to Spl. Civil Appln. No. 201 of 1971 are briefly stated: The petitioners in this Special Civil Application are Lower Division Clerks in the Education and Social Welfare Department of the State of Maharashtra (respondent No. 1) and who have been promoted as Junior Assistants. Petitioner No. 2 amongst them was the first to be so promoted on 3rd November 1961 while petitioners Nos. 1 and 5 were the last to be so promoted on 6th January 1964. It also appears that petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 6 have been provisionally confirmed as Junior Assistants from 2nd August 1968. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the direct recruits having been directly recruited in employment as Junior Assistants on selection by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. Of these the first to be appointed was respondent No. 3 who was appointed on 19-3-1962 and the last to be appointed was respondent No. 2 who was appointed on 19-4-1966. The petition deals with the question of seniority in the posts of Junior Assistants between the petitioners on the one hand and the respondents on the other i.e. between promotees and direct recruits. According to the petitioners, as a result of the policy and the circulars, orders and resolutions issued by the 1st respondent from time to time, some of them, like petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 6 for example, who have already been confirmed in the posts as Junior Assistants, are liable to be deconfirmed after long and meritorious service in the said posts on account of allegedly arbitrary and invalid rules and resolutions passed by the 1st respondent and some of the petitioners are even in the danger of being reverted on account of such arbitrary and unjust rules and resolutions, which are the subject-matter of the petition and such result is likely to arise in the following facts and circumstances: