SACHIN SAHEBRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed by project affected persons whose services have been terminated pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7472/2007 Sunil Eknath Patil alias Chaudhar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 4 BCR 653. Ordinarily, we would have directed the petitioners, who admittedly are Government servants, to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, which we will presently advert to, we are of the view that these petitions would have to be entertained by this Court, despite an alternate efficacious remedy being available to the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners applied for the posts of 'Clerk-typist' and 'Talathi' in the cadre of Class-Ill employees pursuant to an advertisement issued on 17/8/2007. The petitioners were invited to appear for the written examination as well as the oral interviews and were declared successful candidates. Thereafter, appointment orders were issued in their favour on 25/2/2008. It appears that while the recruitment procedure was in progress, one Sunil Eknath Patil, a project affected person, preferred Writ Petition No. 7472/2007 reported in 2008(4) Bom.C.R. 653 before this Court challenging the recruitment procedure for the post of "Clerk-typist" and "Talathi in the Jalgaon District. The principal grounds of challenge in that petition were that project affected persons whose names were maintained in a seniority list by the Collector could not be compelled to compete between themselves for recruitment. It was contended that once a person is included in the list of project affected persons, he is entitled to appointment to a post reserved for project affected person depending only on his seniority in that list. The Division Bench of this Court issued certain directions due to which the petitioners' services were terminated on 30/7/2008 and 31/7/2008.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that although the respondents herein were aware that the recruitment procedure was in progress and appointment orders had been issued prior to the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7472/2007 reported in 2008(4) Bom.C.R. 653 this fact was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. It is contended that neither the petitioner in that writ petition nor the respondents thought it fit to bring to the notice of this Court that the petitioners herein and others like them who had been issued appointment orders pursuant to the selection held after issuing advertisements on 17/8/ 2007, would be adversely affected. The petitioners have contended that since they were not heard by this Court, it is necessary for them to file the present petition rather than approaching the Administrative Tribunal as the Tribunal would be bound by the decision of the Division Bench.