GAJANAN JAIRAMSA Vs. COMMANDENT GENERAL HOME GUARDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that he is illegally superseded by the respondents 2 to 13 in promotion to the post of Paltan Naik and other equivalent posts to which the aforesaid respondents were promoted by the order dated 22-6-1984.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts are that by the order dated 3-2-1977, the petitioner was appointed as Havildar Instructor by the respondent No. 1 on purely temporary basis, pending availability of the candidates selected by the maharashtra Public Services (Subordinate) Selection Board (for short, "mpssb") or any of the candidates from the Surplus Cadre Cell available with the Collector or in the General Administration Department of the mantralaya. It is his case that the respondents 2 to 13 were also appointed likewise on purely temporary basis, after he was appointedas per the aforesaid order dated 3-2-1977. Thus, according to him, on the basis of the initial order of appointment the respondents 2 to 13 were junior to him. It is, however, clear that the petitioner as well as the respondents 2 to 13 were required to appear before the MPSSB and after their selection by the PSSB their appointments were regularised by the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 29-5-1979 from the date of issue of the said order. It is mentioned by him in his order dated 29-5-1979 that the seniority of the appointees will be reckoned in accordance with their places in the merit list prepared by the MPSSB irrespective of their dates of initial appointment in the said post.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 thereafter by his order dated 22-6-1984, promoted the respondents 2 to 13 to the higher posts shown against their names on temporary basis until further orders. It appears that the above temporary promotions until further orders were made since no seniority list of Havildar Instructors as per the Rules was framed by the competent authority of the State. The petitioner as well as other persons like him and particularly Shri A. G. Pande, Havildar Instructor, had made representations about their seniority to the appropriate authority of the State Government. In reply to the representation made by Shri A. G. Pande, Hav ildar instructor, the Accounts Officer, Home Guards, State of Maharashtra informed the District Commandant, Home Guards. Nagpur by his letter dated 2-9-1983 that the question of seniority of Havildar Instructors is under consideration of the Government and that pending finalisation of such seniority list Shri Pande's name should be shown in the Attendance register as per the initial date of his appointment to the post of Havildar instructor. The petitioner was, however, informed about his representation against the aforesaid order of promotion dated 22-6-1984 by the Commandant general, Home Guards, by his memo dated 20-2-1985 that his representation was rejected because the promotions as per the order dated 26-2-1984 were made according to the placement of the candidates concerned in the select list prepared by the MPSSB. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court claiming the relief that the order of promotion dated 22-6-1984 promoting the respondents 2 to 13 to the Higher Post as shown against their names should be quashed and the respondent N6. 1 should be directed to give to the petitioner a suitable deemed date of promotion with all consequential benefits above the respondents 2 to 13.