-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.10431 OF 2004 NO.10431 OF 2004 NO.10431 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Petitioners v/s Sanjay D. Patil and anr. ...Respondents Mr D.A. Patil, AGP for Petitioners. Mr R.R. Shetty with Mr S.V. Morne for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.H. BHATIA JJ. DATE : 3RD APRIL 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in original application No.358 of 2003 dated 17th September 2004. To say the least, the order made by the M.A.T. is an extraordinary order and we are really surprised by that order. The relevant facts are that the respondent - Sanjay Patil, pursuant to an advertisement published by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, applied for the post of Deputy Director of Town Planning. The M.P.S.C. interviewed him and selected him for appointment to the post of Deputy Director of Town planning and sent that recommendation to the Government of Maharashtra. The Government of Maharashtra, however, did not accept the recommendation and appoint the respondent to the post of Deputy Director of Town Planning because there were certain adverse remarks recorded in the confidential report of the respondent for the period from 12th January 2001 to 31st March 2001. 2. It appears that on being communicated the adverse remarks, the respondent Sanjay Patil had made a -3- representation against those adverse remarks and that representation is still pending. By the order impugned in this petition, the M.A.T. has directed that the respondent - Sanjay Patil should be provisionally appointed on probation for a period of two years in the post of Deputy Director of Town Planning subject to decision on the representation of the respondent against the adverse remarks. In short, the M.A.T. has issued a mandamus for appointment and the mandamus for appointment has been issued only because the M.P.S.C. had recommended the name of the respondent for appointment to the post of Deputy Director of Town Planning. It is a settled law that recommendation made by the M.P.S.C. does not give right to the candidate for appointment, his right is to be considered for appointment. In our opinion, in view of the adverse remarks, the Government decided not to appoint the respondent. The Government was justified in taking that decision. The only course open to the M.A.T. was to direct the Government to decide the representation and then consider the respondent for appointment in case the adverse remarks are expunged. In no circumstance and in no case, an order directing the Government to appoint the respondent even provisionally to the post of Deputy Director of Town Planning could have been made. In our opinion, taking overall view of the matter therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. -4- 3. The order of the M.A.T. in so far as it directs the petitioners to appointment respondent - Sanjay Patil to the post of Deputy director of Town Planning is concerned is set aside. The petitioners shall consider the representation of the respondent - Sanjay Patil against the adverse remarks communicated to him in accordance with law and communicate its decision on that representation to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. The State of Maharashtra thereafter shall consider the question of appointing the respondent - Sanjay Patil to the post of Deputy Director of Town Planning as per the recommendations of the M.P.S.C. afresh, also considering the decision on the representation referred to above. That reconsideration shall be made within a period of two weeks from the date of decision on representation and the decision be communicated to the respondent. In case the decision goes against the respondent, the respondent shall be entitled to adopt the remedy that may be available to him in law. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. -5- . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( J.H. BHATIA J.)