PRASHANT SHYAM SAPKALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with following substantive prayers:

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this Petition are as under:

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, referring to the grounds taken in the Petition, submitted that the order passed by the learned MAT is unsustainable in law being misconstrued and misconceived. Learned Members of the MAT failed to consider that once the benefit of concession is given to employee, it cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn by subsequent action unless there are cogent and justifiable reasons. Learned counsel further submitted that learned MAT failed to give finding on the point that if two chances are granted, why third chance is not granted to the Petitioner as has been granted to similarly placed person, namely Mr. Sharma. Learned counsel invites our attention to the communication dated 14th December, 2011, whereby amendment is introduced to Rule 11 of the Recruitment of Police Constable Rules, 2000, and instead of 'two chances' the words 'three chances' are incorporated. Learned counsel submits that as this amendment was introduced on 14th December, 2011 and the impugned order was passed by the learned MAT on 11th June, 2010, the learned MAT had no occasion to consider the said amendment to the recruitment rules. He therefore, submits that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.