Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 30/07/2024 in Original Application No.600 of 2024. The Tribunal had quashed Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 issued by the State of Maharashtra, which modified the promotional postings of Smt. Archana Gaikwad (petitioner in WP 8511/2024) and Shri Shyam Lohi (respondent No.1). The background is that on 16/03/2024, the State issued a GR promoting 23 Deputy RTOs to RTO Group-A, with Shyam Lohi posted at Pune and Archana Gaikwad at Akaluj. However, due to the Lok Sabha elections code of conduct, the order was not implemented. Archana had been requesting a posting at Pune due to her husband's and mother's health issues. After the elections, on 13/06/2024, the State modified the postings, posting Archana at Pune and Shyam Lohi at Chandrapur. Shyam Lohi challenged this before the Tribunal, which quashed the modification. The High Court, in the present judgment, allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The Court held that the State has the power to modify promotional postings before implementation, and no vested right accrues to an employee for a particular place of posting until the order is acted upon. The Court also noted that the requirement of a Civil Service Board proposal applies to transfers, not promotional postings, and that no opportunity of hearing is required before modification of a posting order that has not been implemented. The Court relied on several precedents including Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, S.L. Abbas v. Union of India, and others. The petitions were allowed, and the GR dated 13/06/2024 was restored.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotional Posting - Modification Before Implementation - State's Power - The State Government has the authority to modify promotional postings before the order is implemented, and no vested right accrues to an employee for a particular place of posting until the order is acted upon. The Tribunal erred in quashing the modification order without considering that the earlier GR dated 16/03/2024 was not implemented due to election code of conduct. (Paras 1-10)
B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Not Required for Modification of Posting Order - When a posting order has not been implemented, the affected employee has no right to be heard before modification, as no vested right is created. The Tribunal's finding that the modification was arbitrary without hearing the respondent is unsustainable. (Paras 7-10)
C) Service Law - Civil Service Board - Proposal Not Required for Promotional Posting - The requirement of a proposal from the Civil Service Board applies to transfers, not to initial promotional postings. The Tribunal's observation that modification lacked such proposal is erroneous. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred in quashing the Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 which modified the promotional postings of the petitioner and respondent, and whether the State Government has the power to modify promotional postings before implementation.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30/07/2024 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No.600 of 2024 is quashed and set aside. The Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 is restored.
Law Points
- Promotional posting is an incidence of service
- State has power to modify posting before implementation
- no vested right to a particular place of posting
- no requirement of Civil Service Board proposal for promotional posting
- opportunity of hearing not required before modification of posting order not yet implemented
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (03) 201
Writ Petition No.8511 of 2024 and Writ Petition No.9474 of 2024
S. G. Mehare, Sandipkumar C. More
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. P. S. Dighe i/be Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande and Abhay D. Ostwal for petitioner in WP 8511/2024; Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Kunal Kale i/b Mr. Avinash Deshmukh for Respondent No.1; Mr. A. S. Shinde, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 -State; Mr. A. S. Shinde, AGP for petitioners in WP 9474/2024; Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Kunal Kale i/b Mr. Avinash Deshmukh for Respondent No.1; Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. P. S. Dighe i/be Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande and Abhay D. Ostwal for Respondent No.2
Smt. Archana w/o Shailendra Gaikwad (in WP 8511/2024) and The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (in WP 9474/2024)
Shri Shyam s/o Shivajirao Lohi & Ors. (in WP 8511/2024) and Shri Shyam Shivajirao Lohi & Anr. (in WP 9474/2024)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which quashed Government Resolution modifying promotional postings of two RTO officers.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (Archana Gaikwad and State of Maharashtra) sought setting aside of the Tribunal's order and restoration of the Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024.
Filing Reason
The Tribunal quashed the modification of promotional postings, which the petitioners argued was within the State's power and done before implementation.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad, in Original Application No.600 of 2024, quashed Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 and directed implementation of Government Resolution dated 16/03/2024.
Issues
Whether the State Government has the power to modify promotional postings before the order is implemented?
Whether the modification of posting without giving opportunity of hearing to the affected employee is arbitrary?
Whether the requirement of Civil Service Board proposal applies to promotional postings?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners (Archana and State): The State has power to modify posting before implementation; no vested right accrues; no hearing required; Civil Service Board proposal not needed for promotional posting.
Respondent (Shyam Lohi): The modification was arbitrary and without hearing; the earlier GR was implemented; the process was suspicious; State withheld records.
Ratio Decidendi
The State Government has the power to modify promotional postings before the order is implemented. No vested right accrues to an employee for a particular place of posting until the order is acted upon. The requirement of a Civil Service Board proposal applies to transfers, not to initial promotional postings. No opportunity of hearing is required before modification of a posting order that has not been implemented.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Tribunal under the impugned order has quashed and set aside Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024...
The learned senior counsel Mr. Dhorde for the petitioner – Archana vehemently submitted that the respondent / State has rightly considered the applications of the petitioner- Archana on account of illness of her husband and mother and modified the Government Resolution dated 16/03/2024...
The learned AGP... submitted that even if any promotional posting is to be given to the candidate or person, the final authority for such promotional posting is the Competent Authority of State...
Procedural History
The State issued GR on 16/03/2024 promoting 23 Deputy RTOs including Archana and Shyam Lohi, with Shyam posted at Pune. Due to election code of conduct, the order was not implemented. On 13/06/2024, the State modified the postings, posting Archana at Pune and Shyam at Chandrapur. Shyam filed OA No.600/2024 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the modification on 30/07/2024. Archana filed WP 8511/2024 and the State filed WP 9474/2024 challenging the Tribunal's order. The High Court heard both petitions together and delivered judgment on 18/03/2025.
