-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7227 OF 2007 PETITION NO.7227 OF 2007 PETITION NO.7227 OF 2007 Balasaheb N. Ohol and ors. ...Petitioners v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr M.S. Topkar i/b Mr Anilkumar Joshi for Petitioners. Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr A.Y. Sakhare i/b Mr A.V. Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.4. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.Y. GANOO JJ. DATE : 30TH JUNE 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. The petition is not on board for final hearing. However, with the consent of both the parties, we have taken it for final hearing. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in original application No.466 of 2006 on 1st March 2007. Though a copy of the original application has not been produced, from the prayer clause of the application which is quoted in the petition it is clear that the petitioners were challenging before the M.A.T. two seniority lists published by the Government of the post of Executive Engineer. Admitted position is that the petitioner No.1 was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in 1991, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in 1999 and petitioner No.2 was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer ever thereafter i.e. after 1999. Out of the two seniority lists challenged before the M.A.T. one is dated 28th February 2000. It is for the period from 1st April 1990 to 31st March 1998. It is common ground that the seniority list dated 28th February 2000 is a provisional seniority list and according to the -3- petitioners, they have raised objection to that list and admittedly final seniority list of the Executive Engineers for the period from 1st April 1990 to 31st March 1998 is yet to be published. The petitioners before the M.A.T. had also challenged the seniority list dated 17th July 2004. That seniority list is of Executive Engineers and relates to the period from 21st December 1970 to 31st March 1990. Now, so far as the challenge to the seniority list dated 17th July 204 is concerned, the petitioners could not have cause of action to challenge that seniority list because none of the petitioners were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer during the period from 21st December 1970 to 31st March 1990. Each of the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer after 1st April 1990. For challenging the final seniority list dated 17th July 2004, only those persons who were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer during the period from 21st December 1970 to 31st March 1990 will have cause of action and locus standi. Even though that list has been finalised by the Government as per the order of the M.A.T., M.P.S.C. is being consulted in relation to that list. In so far as the seniority list of 28th February 2000 for the period from 1st April 1990 to 31st March 1998 is concerned, it is a provisional seniority list. The principal objection of the petitioners to that seniority list is that the -4- provisional seniority list has been prepared contrary to the directions issued by the M.A.T. by its judgment in original application No.107 of 1999 and other connected matters decided on 27th April 2001 and the judgment of this Court in writ petition No.1797 of 2001 decided on 27th January 2005 (State of Maharashtra v/s S.S. Pakhare and ors.). In that petition, above referred judgment was challenged and the petition was partly allowed. Perusal of the order of the M.A.T. challenged in this petition shows that the M.A.T. has declined to interfere with the provisional seniority list dated 28th February 2000 by observing that as the law has been laid down by the M.A.T. and this Court, the Government is bound to follow that law while finalising the seniority list. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the M.A.T.’s decision. Basically, the application of the petitioners before the M.A.T. challenging the seniority list of 28th February 2000 was premature because the Government itself had invited objections to the provisional seniority list and the petitioners have lodged the objections and final seniority list for the period from 1st April 1990 to 31st March 1998 is admittedly yet to be published. As and when the Government publishes final seniority list for the period from 1st April 1990 to 31st March 1998 of the Executive Engineers, it goes without saying that in case the petitioners are aggrieved by that list and in case the -5- petitioners find that the final seniority list has been prepared ignoring the directions issued by the M.A.T. and which are confirmed by this Court, the petitioners are entitled to challenge the final seniority list. As observed above, so far as the final seniority list for the previous period i.e. from 21st December 1970 to 31st March 1990 is concerned, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge that list because they do not have any cause of action since they were not promoted to the post of Executive Engineer before 1st April 1990. In the result therefore, we do not find any substance in the petition. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary as true copy. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( R.Y. GANOO J.)