1 W.P.No. 908 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 908 OF 2006 Sanjay s/o Gyanu Godbole, Age : 38 years, occu.Nil R/o Khori Galli, Near Employment office, At Post Dist. Latur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Health Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Deputy Director of Health Services, Latur Circle, Latur Dist. Latur 3. Shri Sk. Akbar Sk. Gani, Age : 29 years, Occu : Service As Clerk at Renapur R.H. on Deputation at Civil Hospital At Latur) C/o Civil Hospital, Latur Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.R. Choukidar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 & 2 CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 24th March, 2011 2 W.P.No. 908 of 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. MHATRE, J.) The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is against the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.421 of 2004, passed on 10th June, 2005. According to the petitioner he was appointed in service as an ad hoc employee on 10th July, 1998. The petitioner contends that respondent no.3 was similarly appointed on 22nd September, 1999. 2. Apprehending his termination from service the petitioner preferred a complaint under item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 before the Labour Court, Latur on 11.6.2003 being Complaint (ULP) No. 37 of 2003. That complaint was disposed of on 16th July, 2003 by the Labour Court in view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent in the complaint i.e. respondent no.2 herein. The statement made was to the effect that the services of the complainant i.e. the petitioner herein would not be terminated till candidates were selected after a regular selection process was conducted in accordance with law. It appears that immediately after the complaint was disposed of, the services of both the petitioner and the respondent no.3 were terminated on 25th July, 2003. 3 W.P.No. 908 of 2006 3. The respondent no.3 approached the Industrial Court by filing Complaint (ULP) No.52 of 2003 under items 5, 6, 9 & 10 of the Maharashtra Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. He obtained interim relief in his favour and was, therefore, continued in service. On the other hand, the petitioner preferred Original Application No.421 of 2004 before the Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner had also prayed for interim relief before the Administrative Tribunal. Considering the affidavit filed by the State, in which the State had indicated that it would follow the principle of "last come, first go", no interim relief was granted to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner too was satisfied that the State would follow the seniority list of ad hoc employees in the Junior Clerk cadre in the Circle while considering the appointment of persons to that cadre. 4. The Original Application was then heard by the Tribunal which has passed the impugned order. 5. On a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the only reason that the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application was that respondent no.3 had obtained an order from the Industrial Court directing parties to maintain status quo. That order had been passed on 20th July, 2003. The Tribunal, therefore, was of the opinion that the services of respondent no.3 could not be disturbed and dismissed the Original Application. 4 W.P.No. 908 of 2006 6. It appears from the record that the complaint filed by the respondent no.3, i.e. Complaint (ULP) No.52 of 2003 before the Industrial Court, Solapur was dismissed on 29.11.2005. Therefore, obviously when the impugned order was passed by the Administrative Tribunal, the interim order of the Industrial Court was still in force. In these circumstances, in our view, it would not be possible to interfere with the decision of the Administrative Tribunal. 7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner points out that the respondent no.3 has been continued in service even after the Industrial Court dismissed his complaint. According to him, there is no legal basis on which the respondent no.3 could continue in service when he was junior to the petitioner. The learned Advocate further points out that the State has taken different stands at different stages including the stand that the respondent no.3 is a physically challenged person and, therefore, must be continued in service. 8. In our opinion, all these issues cannot be conveniently decided in a writ petition. In fact, the scope of the writ petition cannot be widened as the only challenge in the petition is to the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. In our opinion, that order cannot be faulted. However, the petitioner is always at liberty to file fresh proceedings before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance 5 W.P.No. 908 of 2006 regarding the continuation of respondent no.3 in service. In case any such proceedings are filed by the petitioner, all the contentions raised in the present petition and affidavits filed may be raised before the appropriate forum. 9. Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) ( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) amj/wp908.06