1 wp2538.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2538 OF 2011 KJ Dr.Suresh Parshuram Jagdale )..Petitioner Vs. Dr.Mrs.Ratna Dinkar Raokhande & Anr. )..Respondents ­­­­ Mr.A.V.Anturkar @ Pratap Patil for the petitioner. Mr.K.V.Tembe for respondent no.1. Mr.A.B.Vagyani AGP for respondent no.2. ­­­­ CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 6/4/2011. PC 1 Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. 2 wp2538.11.sxw 2 Heard Counsel for the parties. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai dated 3.2.2011 in Original Application No.1267 of 2009. By the said Original Application, the respondent no.1 who was working as Residential Medical Officer (RMO) in Civil Hospital, Satara, challenged the order dated 3.7.2009 issued by the Under Secretary, Public Health Department, whereby the petitioner herein was given revised pay scale and came to be posted as Medical Officer (surgery) Civil Hospital, Satara. The basis on which the Tribunal answered the controversy can be seen from the discussion in paragraph­8 from the impugned judgment. It has taken the view that the mandate of Government Resolution dated 17.6.1986 postulate that the person appointed as Civil Surgeon shall have 3 years experience in the rural area. Petitioner does not fulfill that criteria. As a result, the order dated 3.7.2009 came to be set aside. This decision is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 3 According to the petitioner although several contentions 3 wp2538.11.sxw were taken by the petitioner before the Tribunal as can be seen from paragraphs­7 & 8 of the reply affidavit filed before the Tribunal to oppose the Original Application filed by respondent no. 1, those questions have not been dealt with by the Tribunal at all. 4 As aforesaid, the only discussion in the impugned judgment is found in paragraph­8 and the sole basis of allowing Original Application is the conditions stipulated in Government Resolution dated 17.6.1986. However, the petitioner had also raised issue regarding the factual matrix of having served in rural areas for total period of 8 years and 4 months while working as Medical Officer class­2 which according to him, was substantial compliance of the requirement stated in Government Resolution dated 17.6.1986. Besides, the other issue raised by the petitioner, is that, the Government Resolution dated 17.6.1986 is only in the nature of guidelines and cannot have the effect of superseding the statutory rules issued under Article­309 of the Constitution of India dated 1.8.1981. The experience stipulated in the said rules is limited to experience in a big hospital for not less than 5 years 4 wp2538.11.sxw after acquiring MBBS degree. The question whether the Government Resolution dated 17.6.1986 supplants the said condition or otherwise; and could be done by issuing Government Resolution which would have the effect of over­riding the provision of statutory rules issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India is a question which goes to the root of the matter. Those issues ought to have been addressed by the Tribunal in the first instance before proceeding to answer the controversy on hand. Besides, the Tribunal ought to have also addressed itself to the plea taken by the petitioner that the service rendered by him in rural areas for total period of 8 years and 4 months as Medical Officer, class­2 was substantial compliance of the requirement. All these aspects and other contentions will have to be considered by the Tribunal in the first instance. 5 Accordingly, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment and relegate the parties before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for reconsideration of the entire matter afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law. All questions 5 wp2538.11.sxw raised by the respective parties either in the present petition or before the Tribunal are left open to be decided on its own merits. 6 Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 3.2.2011 in Original Application No.1267 of 2009 is quashed and set aside and instead the said Original Application is restored to the file to the file of the Tribunal to be proceeded afresh. All questions are left open. Petition allowed on the above terms. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)