1 WP-5059-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5059 OF 2010 State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Kisan Kacharu Bhadane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A.B. Vagyani, AGP for the petitioner Mr. P.M. Patil i/b.Mr. M.B. Gawade,for respondent No.1. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATE: 29th September, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Vagyani, the learned A.G.P., for the petitioner. Mr. Patil appears for the respondent No.1. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution questions the legality of the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 10th December, 2008 thereby allowing the O.A. No.189 of 2008 filed by respondent No.1. 2 WP-5059-10 3. It seems that respondent No.1 as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 passed the State Service (May) Examination 1999 held by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (M.P.S.C.). In the list of successful candidates recommended by the M.P.S.C., on completion of the selection process, the respondent No.1 was placed at serial No.98 while the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were placed at serial Nos.138 and 140 respectively. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Naib Tahsildar in Nashik Division from 26th November, 2001 and on his request he came to be transfered to Konkan Division on 15th February, 2006 and he resumed his charge on 4th March, 2006. He submitted a representation on 27th September, 2007 and 15th October, 2007 apprehending that his seniority would be disturbed. By an order dated 19th March, 2008 the petitioners promoted respondent Nos.2 and 3 on ad hoc basis and without considering the candidature of respondent No.1, original applicant. He, therefore, approached the Tribunal. He also pointed out that the seniority list of Naib Tahsildar was required to be drawn as per Rule 4(2) and 5(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules 1982, (for short the Seniority Rules). 3 WP-5059-10 4. The present petitioners opposed the Original Application and submitted that on his request transfer to Konkan Division he lost his seniority and he was placed in the seniority list below respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and, therefore, his case could not be considered for promotion to the post of Tahsildar on ad hoc basis. 5. The Tribunal adverted to the respective submissions and noted that the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division had included the applicant’s name in the list of candidates who were required to be considered for promotion and this was done by relying upon Rule 4(2) and Rule 5(2) of the Regulation of Seniority. The said recommendation was changed and the name of the applicant was deleted on the sole ground that on his own request he was transferred to Konkan Division by relying upon the G.R. dated 11th September, 2008 which G.R. was in fact issued after the petitioner was transferred to the Konkan Division. The Tribunal also held that the G.R. dated 11th September, 2008 could not override the Seniority Rules, and the State Government was required to follow the provisions of Rule 4(2)(a) and 5(2) of the said Rules. This view taken by the Tribunal, in our considered opinion, cannot be said to be erroneous so as to call for interference and we are satisfied that the reasoning set out by the Tribunal 4 WP-5059-10 while allowing the Original Application does not suffer on any count. 6. Hence the petition is rejected. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)