High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
wp11331.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 11331 OF 2024Maharashtra Development ServicesGazetted Officers Association Reg. No./RGA/1995/CR/10/15/16-Adated 23rd June, 1995E-mail ID : [email protected] its Member- Shirish Dattatraya BansodeAge 45 years, Occ. Service (Addl. CEO)Zilla Parishad, Jalna Tq. District Jalna ...Petitioner versus 1.Union Public Service CommissionThrough its Secretary,Dholpur House, Shahjahan RoadNew Delhi 110 0692.Department of Personnel andTraining, Ministry of Personnel,PG and Pensions,Government of India North Block, New Delhi 110 001 3.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Chief Secretary Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 0334.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Additional ChiefSecretary (Seva) GAD department Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 0325.The State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary,Rural Development Deptt. Construction Building 25,Marzban Path, Fort, Mumbai 1.
Legal Reasoning
wp11331.24-2- 6.Ravindra Pandurang Pawar,Age 43 years, working as Private SecretaryIn the office of the MinisterFood and Drug AdministrationOffice Address 605, Annex BuildingMantralaya, 6th floor,Mumbai 400 032R/o. At Flat No.304, “Tushar” Building, behind Govt. Law College‘A’ Road,Church Gate, Mumbai ...Respondents …..Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande, advocate h/f Mr. V.V. Gujar, advocate for thepetitioner Mr. A.G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. V.M. Kagne, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 3 to 5Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, senior advocate i/b Mr. Sushant V.Dixit forrespondent No.6. ….. CORAM:MANGESH S. PATIL AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATED:14 OCTOBER 2024 JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :- Heard. 2.Rule. It is made returnable forthwith. Mr. Talhar, learnedD.S.G.I. waives service for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Karlekar,learned A.G.P. waives service of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and Mr.Dixit, learned advocate waives service for respondent No.6. 3.At the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finallyat the stage of admission. wp11331.24-3- 4.The petitioner is an approved association of GazettedOfficers of Maharashtra Development Services (for short “M.D.S.”).By filing Original Application before the Central AdministrativeTribunal, it is seeking following reliefs:-“a.Original application may kindly be allowed. b.The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to stop the process ofpromotion to IAS Cadre from among the candidates ofMaharashtra Revenue Service (Deputy Collector Cadre)as these services are not approved as State CivilService/Services by Central Government in accordancewith the Rule 2(j)(ii) of the Indian Administrative Services(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. c.The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondentNos. 1 and 2 to send back the proposal forwarded by StateGovernment for promotion to IAS Cadre from among thecandidates of Maharashtra Revenue Services (DeputyCollector Cadre) as these services are not approved asState Civil Service/Services by Central Government inaccordance with the Rule 2(j)(ii) of the IndianAdministrative Service (Appointment by Promotion)Regulations, 1955 and to stay the meeting of SGMorganized on 30.08.2024 by respondent No.1 forpromotion to IAS Cadre for vacancies as on 01.01.2023.d.The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondentsto get approved State Civil Service/Services by Central
Decision
wp11331.24-4- Government in accordance with the Rule 2(j)(ii) of theIndian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion)Regulations, 1955 and as per decision of Madras HighCourt in the Writ Petition No. 17643 of 2012 andconsidering the equivalence granted to MaharashtraDevelopment Services in Maharashtra Gazette date 11July, 1974.e.That this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct theseRespondents to declare Maharashtra DevelopmentService as State Civil Service. f.The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set asidethe impugned Government Gazette Notification No. RNINo. MAHBIL/2009/31745, Extraordinary No.62, authorizedPublication dated 09.07.2019 issued by GeneralAdministration Department, Government of Maharashtra,where Maharashtra Development Services are declared asNon State Civil Service which is preventing includingnames of officers from Maharashtra Development Servicesto be included in the list of seniority prepared for promotionto IAS cadre from among the candidates declared as StateCivil Service on the ground of same being violative ofArticles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. g.The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondentsto add the names of members of MaharashtraDevelopment Gazetted Officers Association in the senioritylist prepared/being prepared for promotion to IAS Cadrefor the vacancies as on 01.01.2023 as per the respectiveseniority and direct Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to send wp11331.24-5- proposal for promotion to IAS Cadre to Respondent Nos.1and 2 as per the directions given by Hon’ble High Court ofBombay, Bench at Aurangabad in the writ petition No.6719 of 2024 order dated 08.07.2024. h.Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunalmay deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances ofthe case and thus render justice. I.Any other suitable and equitable relief, to which theapplicants are eligible and entitled to, and this Hon’bleTribunal feels it appropriate, may kindly be granted in theirfavour.” 5.By way of interim relief, the petitioner prayed forwithholding the process of promotion and the meeting of the scrutinycommittee, which was to be held on 30.8.2024, by the Union PublicService Commission (U.P.S.C.) for promotion to I.A.S. cadre, for thevacancies as on 01.01.2023. 6.The whole emphasis of the petitioner and the learnedadvocate Mr. Deshpande, is on the fact that as per the IndianAdministrative Services (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,1955, in the light of the definition contained in clause 2(1)(j)(ii), the‘State Civil Services’ means any service or services approved forpurposes of the Recruitment Rules by the Central Government in wp11331.24-6- consultation with the State Government, a member of which normallyholds, for the purposes of revenue and general administration,charge of a sub-division of a district or post of higher responsibility.The petitioner’s members though are regarded as M.D.S., theydischarge the same duties and responsibilities as are beingdischarged by the persons appointed as Deputy Collectors, however,though Deputy Collectors are being considered for promotions to theIndian Administrative Services cadre under the quota reserved forState Civil services, the petitioner’s members are being discriminatedagainst. Mr. Deshpande would submit that even there is nothing todemonstrate that in accordance with the Indian AdministrativeServices Recruitment Rules, 1954 (hereinafter “the Rules of 1954”),under Rule 2(j)(ii), the services of the Deputy Collector have beenapproved by the Central Government in consultation with the StateGovernment, still the Deputy Collectors are being considered on thepremise that they are from State Civil Services. The members of thepetitioner, who are considered as M.D.S. are facing discrimination.7.Mr. Deshpande would submit that this Court in writ petitionNo. 6719 of 2024, by order dated 08.07.2024, had directed theoriginal applicant, who was also from M.D.S. category to decide herOriginal application finally. For non cooperation by the State and theUnion of India, the Tribunal could not decide that original application wp11331.24-7- expeditiously and the petitioner, being an association, had noalternative but to press for interim relief which has been rejected bythe Tribunal by the order under challenge. 8.Mr. Talhar, the learned D.S.G.I. would submit that therespondent Nos. 1 and 2 would have no role till the time the StateGovernment does not initiate any process for including even theofficers from M.D.S. for being considered under the Rules, as StateCivil Servant. 9.The learned senior advocate Mr. Dhakephalkar, wouldsubmit that the petitioner, under the garb of taking up the commoncause for its members, is substantially claiming the same reliefs asare being claimed by the individual applicant, who was before thiscourt in writ petition No. 6719 of 2024 has failed to obtain a similarinterim relief. It is obstructing the process being undertaken for grantof promotions to the I.A.S. cadre from the State Civil Services quota,as per the Rules and Regulations. He would submit that even theapplicant in her original application was relying upon the copy ofcommunication addressed on behalf of the petitioner association tothe State Government raising the same issue. He would submit thatin spite of being aware about this court having already issueddirections for expeditious final disposal of the original application No. wp11331.24-8- 284 of 2024, preferred by that individual, the attempt by the petitionerto seek interim relief by filing the original application and preferringthis writ petition being enable to have it, is a clear abuse of process oflaw. There was no separate or independent cause for the petitionerand for this reason alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed at thethreshold. 10.On merits, Mr. Dhakephalkar would submit that admittedly,as per the Rules of 1954 and the Regulations of 1955, only the StateCivil Service employees are entitled to be considered for promotion tothe Indian Administrative Services in the requisite quota. Whenadmittedly, the members of the petitioner are M.D.S., they are notentitled to be considered for promotion through that quota, till the timetheir services are not approved by the Central Government inconsultation with the State Government. When admittedly, there isno such approval, the petitioner’s employees being not eligible at all,cannot be allowed to obstruct the process being undertaken for grantof promotions. 11.So far as the aspect of discrimination between thepetitioner’s members who are from M.D.S. and the Deputy Collectors,who are being considered as State Civil Servants, who are eligible forpromotion under the Rules of 1954 and Regulations of 1955, wp11331.24-9- Mr. Dhakephalkar, would submit that the Deputy Collectors are beingconsidered as belonging to State Civil Services, eligible for beingpromoted to the I.A.S. cadre from the quota since inception when therules and the regulations have come into being. This being a practicefollowed for decades together, insistence of the petitioner that thereshould be some tangible material to demonstrate that even theDeputy Collector’s service was approved by the Central Governmentin consultation with the State Government cannot be considered.The fact remains that the petitioner’s members are not the DeputyCollectors and irrespective of the stand of the petitioner of therebeing equivalence between the M.D.S. and Deputy Collector, till thetime, the former are not approved by the Central Government inconsultation with the State Government, no fault can be found withthe order of the Tribunal under challenge. He would submit that infact even while passing the order under challenge, the Tribunal hasreferred to its decision on a similar request of the original applicant,which was challenged before this Court in writ petition No. 6719 of2024 and by order dated 08.07.2024 wherein, the original applicationbefore the tribunal was merely expedited. 12.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers. Irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner’s membershave genuine case on the ground of discrimination between them wp11331.24-10- and the Deputy Collectors, admittedly, the M.D.S. has never beenapproved by the Central Government in consultation with the StateGovernment as feeding cadre by following Rules of 1954 andRegulations of 1955. Therefore, the petitioner’s members would notbe eligible for being considered in the State Civil services quota, inthe appointments of Indian Administrative Services. This is whatprecisely has been considered and rightly so, by the Tribunal whilerefusing the interim relief. 13.Besides, as can be discerned, the original application No.284 of 2024 was filed by the person who was from M.D.S. cadre,raising the same issues as are being raised by the petitionerassociation. It does not appear that the petitioner association isoblivious of the order passed by the Tribunal in that matter refusinginterim relief. It is also highly improbable that it is not aware evenabout that applicant having challenged the order of the Tribunalbefore this Court in writ petition No. 6719 of 2024 and this courthaving dismissed that petition and had directed the originalapplication to be decided finally. 14. Even if it is assumed, as is being submitted by Mr.Deshpande, that the State did not cooperate the Tribunal in early finaldisposal of the original application, filing another original application wp11331.24-11- and seeking same interim relief cannot be countenanced albeit, dueto some supervening event of conduct of selection committeemeeting on 30.8.2024, which the present petitioner prayed to bestayed by way of interim relief, was subsequently conductedinterregnum. 15.In the light of above, when the issue even in respect ofgrant of interim relief, has already been considered by this Court inwrit petition No. 6719 of 2024, in the matter of similarly placedindividual from M.D.S., as is being submitted by Mr. Dhakephalkar,the petitioner has been abusing the process of law. 16.No interim relief can be granted as is being claimed, till thetime there is no adjudication on the petitioner’s claim, seeking M.D.S.to be considered on par with the Deputy Collectors as belonging toState Civil Services as defined under Rule 2(j)(ii) of the Rules of1954. The Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the orderunder challenge thereby refusing interim relief. 17.The petition is dismissed. 18.Rule is discharged. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL , J.) rlj/