Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Tribunal Order in Seniority Dispute — Seniority List Must Include All Eligible Employees as on Cut-off Date.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Dr. Sanjay Atmaram Gaikwad, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 2/12/2009 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1421 of 2009. The respondent No.3, Dr. Ganesh Shankarrao Jadhav, was appointed as a Class-I, Group 'A' officer in the Maharashtra Medical Insurance Services on 01/09/2007. On 23/10/2009, the State Government circulated a seniority list of Group-A Medical Superintendents/Medical Administrative Officers as on 01/01/2009, which did not include the respondent No.3's name. The respondent No.3 approached the Tribunal seeking inclusion of his name in the seniority list. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the State to include his name. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the respondent No.3 was not on the rolls as on 01/01/2009. The High Court held that the Tribunal's order was correct and dismissed the petition, finding no error in the direction to include the respondent No.3's name in the seniority list.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Seniority - Cut-off Date - Inclusion of Eligible Employees - Maharashtra Medical Insurance Services - The Tribunal directed the State to include the applicant's name in the seniority list as on 01/01/2009, holding that the applicant was appointed on 01/09/2007 and was eligible for inclusion. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, finding no error in the direction to include the applicant's name. (Paras 4-6)

B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Scope of Judicial Review - The High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order, noting that the Tribunal had correctly applied the principle that seniority lists must reflect the actual date of appointment and include all eligible employees. (Para 6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred in directing the State Government to include the respondent No.3's name in the seniority list of Group-A Medical Superintendents/Medical Administrative Officers as on 01/01/2009.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Seniority list must include all eligible employees as on the cut-off date
  • Maharashtra Medical Insurance Services Rules
  • Article 226 of Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 53

Writ Petition No.5230 of 2010

2010-10-29

B.H. Marlapalle, U.D. Salvi

2010:BHC-AS:22004-DB

Y.S. Jahagirdar (Senior Advocate) with N.V. Bhandiwadekar for petitioner; V.S. Gokhale (A.G.P.) for respondent No.1; M.S. Karnik for respondent No.3

Dr. Sanjay Atmaram Gaikwad

The State of Maharashtra, The Commissioner, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Dr. Ganesh Shankarrao Jadhav

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal regarding seniority list.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of Tribunal's order directing inclusion of respondent No.3's name in seniority list.

Filing Reason

Petitioner aggrieved by Tribunal's order directing inclusion of respondent No.3 in seniority list as on 01/01/2009.

Previous Decisions

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowed Original Application No.1421 of 2009 on 2/12/2009, directing inclusion of respondent No.3's name in seniority list.

Issues

Whether the Tribunal erred in directing inclusion of respondent No.3's name in seniority list as on 01/01/2009.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that respondent No.3 was not on rolls as on 01/01/2009 and thus not entitled to inclusion. Respondent No.3 contended that he was appointed on 01/09/2007 and was eligible for inclusion.

Ratio Decidendi

Seniority list must include all eligible employees as on the cut-off date; Tribunal's order directing inclusion was correct and not interfered with.

Judgment Excerpts

The applicant came to be appointed as Class-I, Group 'A' officer in the Maharashtra Medical Insurance Services... on 01/09/2007. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the State to include his name.

Procedural History

Respondent No.3 filed Original Application No.1421 of 2009 before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 23/10/2009. Tribunal allowed application on 2/12/2009. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5230 of 2010 under Article 226 before Bombay High Court. High Court dismissed petition on 29/10/2010.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Tribunal Order in Seniority Dispute — Seniority List Must Include All Eligible Employees as on Cut-off Date.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Public Servants for Lack of Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC. Acts Alleged Were in Discharge of Official Duty, Making Sanction Mandatory; Proceedings Quashed Under Section 482 CrPC.