1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1860 OF 2001 Chandrakant Sukhalal Fulpagare .. Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Preeti B.Walimbe for the Petitioner. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 15TH OCTOBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated November 8, 2000 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, (for short “MAT”) whereby the petitioner’s Original Application No.475 of 2000 was dismissed. The relevant and material facts for the disposal of the present petition are as under: 2. The petitioner while working as a clerk in the Sales Tax Department challenged his non-selection to the post of Sales Tax Inspector on account of non availability of the post. He also challenged the selection of 4th Respondent who was working as a clerk at the relevant time in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. On September 1, 1995, in exercise of powers conferred by Proviso to 2 Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supercession of all existing rules, orders, instructions made in that behalf, the State Government made rules regulating the recruitment to the post of Sales Tax Inspectors, Gruop C in the Sales Tax Department under the Finance Department of the Government of Maharashtra viz.Maharashtra Sales Tax Inspector (Recruitment) Rules 1995 (for short the “Rules”). Prior to coming into force all these rules, the appointment to the posts of Sales Tax Inspectors was made by promotion of suitable persons on the basis of seniority subject to fitness from amongst the persons holding posts of clerks, clerk-typists, clerk with shorthand allowances, having not less than three years regular service in that posts or by nomination on the basis of result of the competitive examination held by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (for short M.P.S.C.). 3. After introduction of the rules, one more source of recruitment was introduced viz. Selection on the basis of merit list prepared by the MPSC from among clerks who have completed seven years of regular service in the Sales Tax Deprtment. 4. On August 22, 1996, the Respondents advertised for 110 posts though there was a backlog of 441 posts. The petitioner contended that though he was qualified for appointment on account of completion of seven years of regular service, he could not come 3 within the zone of selection. In so far as this contention is concerned by our order dated October 15, 2009 in Writ Petition No.170 of 2001 we have already negatived the said contention. For the reasons recorded therein we do not find any substance in this contention. 5. As far as selection of 4th Respondent is concerned, the petitioner submits that he had not completed seven years of regular service as on 1.1.1999. Reliance was placed upon the Government Circular dated April 21, 1998 to contend that on account of request transfer the 4th Respondent not only lost his seniority but even the past service rendered by him. It was submitted that the 4th Respondent was transferred on his request from Mumbai to Nashik on August 14, 1994 and therefore in terms of Government Circular dated April 21, 1998 he lost his earlier seniority as his transfer was on zonal based seniority. It was submitted that as on 1.1.1999 the 4th Respondent did not complete requisite seven years of regular service. 6. We are unable to appreciate submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The 4th Respondent joined Sales Tax Department on March 28, 1983. On his request he was transferred from Mumbai to Nashik on August 14, 1994. By this time he had already completed requisite regular service of seven years. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the Government Circular dated April 21, 1998 is wholly misconceived as the transfer was effected in the year 1994 itself. That apart on 4 account of request transfer, the employee concerned may loose seniority but it will not result in wiping out his past service. If the submission made by learned counsel is to be accepted, it will give rise to startling result and drastic consequences. In our opinion, the MAT has rightly observed that the petitioner has confused between the loss of seniority and the loss of past service. The request transfer entails loss of seniority but does not forfeit the past service as it is not fresh appointment. We find that the challenge is wholly misconceived. 7. In the result, the petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged, with no order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)