ARUN MORESHWAR PATANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard this petition for a considerable length of time. We have heard Shri Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Apte learned Additional Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

(2.) BY this petition the petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside the selection and appointment of 5th respondent Shri Dravid and 6th respondent Shri Sakhalkar as Administrative Members of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Aurangabad and Nagpur Benches respectively. There are several other reliefs claimed in the petition. The only other relief which is relevent, is further direction to consider the petitioner for appointment as Administrative Member for the aforesaid posts.

(3.) UPON enquiry the petitioner signified his willingness to be considered for appointment as Administrative Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench and in fact he accordingly applied on 2nd July 1994 for the purpose. In a meeting held on 6-2-1995 by the Selection Committee one G. B. Pingulkar was selected for the post of Administrative Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench. The petitioner filed writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 1196 of 1995 before the Nagpur Bench of this Court challenging the aforesaid selection of Shri Pingulkar. After hearing the parties the said petition was admitted but later on admittedly withdrawn by the petitioner. It is further an admitted position before us that ultimately the Central Government did not approve the selection of said Shri Pingulkar on the ground that Shri Pingulkar was not qualified on the date of selection. Again a meeting was held by the Selection Committee however, nobody was selected. It appears that the Selection Committee sometimes in November 1995 again considered several applicants for selection for the post of Administrative Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench and ultimately one Zamre was selected. Sometimes in April 1996 recommendations in favour of said Shri Zamre were rejected by the Government of India on the ground that the said Shri Zamre was not qualified. It is relevant to notice that on all these occasions admittedly petitioners case was also considered by the Selection Committee.