RAVINDRA v. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE
Legal Reasoning
*5* 8wp6719o24Applicants are granted equivalence as Deputy Collectors, allthese officers in this category will have to be treated at par.Therefore, the argument of Shri Thombre, which prima facieappears to be convincing, is that if the Deputy Collectors, inthese circumstances, are being considered to be a part of theState Civil Services, then, the Petitioner cannot be excluded.6.We agree with the learned AGP that this Court maynot entertain this petition since the main proceedings arescheduled for a hearing on 10.07.2024 (Wednesday) before thelearned Tribunal. The learned AGP points out the view of thelearned Tribunal “We agree with him (Advocate for originalApplicants before the Tribunal) that the respondents have notbrought on record anything to show that the services of DeputyCollectors have been approved by the Central Government forbringing them under the canopy of State Civil Service. However,that does not enure to the benefit of the applicants because it isexclusively within the domain of the Central Government and theState Government to consider whether services of officers ofMaharashtra Development Service should be included in StateCivil Service or not.” *6* 8wp6719o247.The learned AGP, therefore, adds that the StateGovernment, at the time of final argument before the learnedTribunal, may point out that the services of the Deputy Collectorshave been approved by the Central Government for being treatedas a part of the State Civil Service.8.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposedoff with a request to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,Mumbai, dealing with Original Application No.284/2024, that itmay consider the view taken by the learned Single Judge Benchof the Madras High Court in No.17643/2012 (P. Anandhraj andothers vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others) and theview taken by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court inWrit Appeal No.1583/2022 (R. Alagumeena and others vs. P.Anandhraj and others), while considering (a) whether, thepresent Petitioner/ original Applicants before the Tribunal havebeen granted equivalence as Deputy Collectors by the State ofMaharashtra, and (b) if the Deputy Collectors without approvalof the Central Government can be brought under the canopy ofthe State Civil Service, whether, the Petitioner, who is granted *7* 8wp6719o24equivalence, could be excluded. 9.Since the Tribunal has expressed, by way of apassing reference in paragraph No.28, that the State Governmenthas not brought any relevant records before it, we call upon thelearned Government Pleader of the Aurangabad Bench ShriGirase, as well as the learned DSGI Shri Talhar, to convey totheir counterparts before the learned Tribunal, to place recordsbefore the Tribunal so as to avoid any order being passed in theabsence of certain records or documents.10.Considering the stakes involved, let the litigatingparties advance final arguments at the earliest before theTribunal. 11.Considering the heavy burden with the learnedTribunal, we request the Tribunal that the judgment be deliveredas expeditiously as possible. kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Arguments
*1* 8wp6719o24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD8 WRIT PETITION NO. 6719 OF 2024RASHMI SHANKARRAO KHANDEKARVERSUSUNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITSSECRETARY AND OTHERS...Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner.Shri Ajay G. Talhar, DSGI for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/ UoI.Shri A.B. Girase, Government Pleader a/w Ms.Neha B. Kamble,AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 5/State.... CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE :- 08th July, 2024Per Court :-1.The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses B, C, D,E and F as under:-“(B) By issuing a writ of certiorari, orders,directions or any other appropriate writ in thelike nature, the order dated 19th June, 2024passed by Hon'ble Central AdministrativeTribunal, Mumbai Bench at Mumbai inOriginal Application No. 284 of 2024, wherebythe learned Tribunal refused an interim reliefas prayed for by the petitioner, may kindly bequashed and set aside;(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writpetition, the effect, operation, implementationand execution of the impugned order dated19th June, 2024 passed by Hon'ble Central *2* 8wp6719o24Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench atMumbai in Original Application No. 284 of2024, whereby the learned Tribunal refused aninterim relief as prayed for by the petitioner,may kindly be stayed, and for that purposeissue necessary orders;(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writpetition, the Respondents may kindly bedirected to withhold the process of promotionto the post of IAS from the Select List (SeniorityList) as on 01.01.2023 prepared From amongthe candidates of Maharashtra state revenueservice until fulfillment of all criterias forpromotion to IAS cadre and until final decisionof the OA 284 of the applicants pending atCentral Administrative Tribunal;(E)Pending hearing and final disposal of this writpetition, the effect, operation andimplementation of the promotion process beingconducted by the Respondents which is beingconducted by virtue of Government GazetteNotification No. RNI No.MAHBIL/2009/31745,Extraordinary No.62 Authorised Publicationdt.9.7.2019, which had excluded the names ofofficers from Maharashtra DevelopmentServices in the seniority list being prepared forpromotion to IAS Cadre from amongst thecandidates of State Civil Services, may kindlybe withheld, and for that purpose, issuenecessary orders;(F) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writpetition, grant ad interim relief in terms ofprayer clauses (C), (D) and (E) as above, andfor that purpose, issue necessary orders;”2.We have considered the strenuous submissions ofthe learned Advocate for the Petitioner Shri Thombre. He hasspecifically drawn our attention to the Indian Administrative *3* 8wp6719o24Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 [Rule 2(g)(ii)] and the IndianAdministrative Service (Appointment by Promotion)Regulations, 1955 [Regulation 2(j)(ii) r/w Regulation 5].3.He has then drawn our attention to the view taken bythe learned Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court, videjudgment dated 28.04.2022, delivered in Writ PetitionNo.17643/2012 (P. Anandhraj and others vs. TheGovernment of Tamil Nadu and others) and a bunch of caseswherein, the learned Single Judge has concluded in paragraphNo.6 as under:-“6.From the above, it can be deduced that anOfficer of the State, who is in-charge of a sub-division of a District, for the purposes ofRevenue and General Administration and alsopersons holding higher responsibility, can beincluded in the State Civil Service. Hence, anyresponsible Officer, being the Head of a sub-division of a District, in the fields of Revenueas well as General Administration is eligible tobe included in the "State Civil Service". Apartfrom this, any Officer, who is holding the postof higher responsibility is also eligible to beincluded in the "State Civil Service".”4.Shri Thombre has then drawn our attention to theview taken by the learned Division Bench of the Madras High *4* 8wp6719o24Court vide judgment dated 15.09.2022, in Writ AppealNo.1583/2022 (R. Alagumeena and others vs. P. Anandhrajand others) and a bunch of appeals, wherein, the same view hasbeen taken. He submits, on instructions from the Petitioner, thatthe Honourable Supreme Court has not interfered with the viewtaken by the Madras High Court.5.We have perused the extensive paragraph No.28 ofthe impugned interim order dated 19.06.2024 passed by thelearned Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. The issueraised by the Petitioner along with the other Applicants beforethe learned Tribunal is, that if the services of Deputy Collectorsare not approved by the Central Government to be brought underthe shelter of the Maharashtra State Civil Services, then, thepresent Petitioner as like other Applicants before the Tribunal,who are granted equivalence as Deputy Collectors by the State ofMaharashtra, will also have to accompany such DeputyCollectors, either for being included in the zone of considerationor for being excluded together. If the Deputy Collectors are notapproved by the Central Government to be brought under theshelter of the State Civil Services and if the Petitioner and other