STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHASKAR D SANAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By both the petitions the same order has been challenged and the same issue is involved in both the petitions therefore, both the petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The facts which are relevant and material for deciding these petitions are that Mr. Sanap is in service of the Government of Maharashtra in the Department of Revenue. It appears that he was holding the post of Tahasildar. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector by order dated 16.9.1985. The Government of Maharashtra issued order dated 23.12.1994, giving deemed date of promotion to Mr. Sanap in the cadre of Deputy collector i.e. 16th August, 1983. It appears that thereafter certain petitions were filed before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal seeking deemed date of promotion in the cadre of Deputy Collector on the ground that those persons should also be given deemed date of promotion because they are similarly situated as Mr. Sanap. During the hearing of these petitions, it appears that Government realised that deemed date of promotion given to Mr. Sanap was a mistake and therefore, the Government issued another order dated 9.1.2002 cancelling its order dated 23.12.1994 by which deemed date of promotion was given to Mr.Sanap in the cadre of Deputy Collector. Another order was issued on 22nd February, 2002 giving new placement in the seniority list to Mr. Sanap, in view of the cancellation of the deemed date of promotion. Both these orders were challenged by Mr. Sanap before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing original application No.318/2002. The Maharasthra Administrative Tribunal decided that application by order dated 1.10.2o02. MAT allowed the original application and set aside order dated 9.1.2002 and 22.2.2002 and confirmed the deemed date of promotion given to Mr. Sanap. It appears that the State Government filed a review application before the MAT seeking review of the order. Some persons who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.6407/2003 also filed application before the MAT for being joined as party to the review application. MAT disposed of all these applications by order dated 20.2.2002. Challenging all these orders, original order as also the order passed in review application and Misc. applications, these two writ petitions have been filed being Writ Petition No. 6839/2003, filed by State of Maharashtra and Writ Petition No.6407/2003 has been filed by some of the persons who had applied to the Tribunal for permission to be joined as respondent in review application.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra and the petitioners in Writ Petition No.6407/2002 submit that the order giving deemed date of promotion to Mr. Sanap, dated 23.12.1994 was invalid and illegal order. The Government realised that the order is invalid when some applications were filed before the MAT by the officers claiming similar deemed date of promotion and therefore, the Government cancelled the order granting deemed date of promotion to Mr. Sanap. According to learned Counsel as the order giving deemed date of promotion to Mr. Sanap, was made by mistake the Government was entitled to correct that mistake. According to him, MAT was not justified in saying that there is no power vested in the State Government to review its order and correct obvious mistake committed by the Government. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6407/2003 adopted the submissions made by the learned Advocate appearing for Government of Maharashtra. The learned Advocate appearing for Government also submits that as an opportunity of being heard was not given to Mr. Sanap before order granting him deemed date of promotion was withdrawn or cancelled, the Tribunal ought to have given liberty to Government to issue Show Cause Notice to Mr. Sanap and then pass appropriate order. The learned Counsel appearing for Mr. Sanap on the other hand submits that firstly, the order giving deemed date of promotion was made in the year 1994 thereafter the petitioner was promoted from the post of Deputy Collector to the post of Additional Collector on 29.6.1998. Therefore, the order giving deemed date of promotion to Mr. Sanap was acted upon. Even assuming that there is power to review that power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, in any case, the Government ought to have taken steps to withdraw the order before the order was acted upon and further promotion was given to Mr. Sanap. The learned Counsel further submits that there is no question of Tribunal giving any liberty to the State Government to take the some action after issuing notice because of inordinate delay involved and passage of time. He submits that so far as petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6407/2003 are concerned, they had not at any point of time challenged the deemed order of promotion given to the petitioner. Therefore, they have no locus standi either to claim that deemed date of promotion was wrongly given to Mr. Sanap or to defend the order of State Government cancelling the order cancelling the deemed date of promotion.