Writ petition 1694/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1694/2011 Bhaurao s/o Nanda Bhamre, Age : 61 years, Occu. Pensioner (Retired Block Development Officer, Higher Grade), R/o Plot No. 50, “Bharti Sadan”, Samarthnagar, Sakri Road, Dhule, Dist. Dhule. ...Petitioner. Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through : The Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 Mr. I.A. Ramteke, Age : Major, Occu. Service as Assistant Commissioner (Development), Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai. 3 Mr. P.R. Shelke, Age : Major, Occu. Service as Dy. Chief Executive Officer (General), Zilla Parishad, Raigad. 4 Mr. P.N. Kadam, Age : Major, Occu. Service as Block Development Officer, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondents. Mr. Sujeet D. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Godbharle, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Writ petition 1694/2011 2 CORAM :D.B. BHOSALE & A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATED : 14 th March,2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V. NIRGUDE, J.): 1. At admission stage, by following order, we are dismissing the writ petition. 2 This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Forum, at Aurangabad dated 04/02/2010 in Original Application No. 689/1999 in which the petitioner was the applicant. The grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was as under. 3 The petitioner, at the time of filing of the Original Application, was working as Higher Grade Block Development Officer, Way back on 07/06/1996, the Secretary Rural Water Development Conservation Department, Maharashtra State, issued final seniority list of the Class-I officers for Maharashtra Development services in which the petitioner stood at serial No. 54. Till 1999 the petitioner was not communicated with any adverse remarks mentioned in his confidential report. However, on 21/04/1999 the Secretary Rural Development Water Conservation Department issued an order thereby conferring status of selection grade of 22 Class-1 officers from Maharashtra Development Services. The applicant did not find his name in the said list. He made representation to the Secretary but in vain. By filing the Original Application, he approached the Writ petition 1694/2011 3 Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Bench at Aurangabad. 4 While opposing the application, the respondents mentioned that the required criteria for conferring selection grade to the Officer concerned was he should have in precedeing five years confidential record with an average grade of “B plus”. The petitioner was not found fit for giving selection grade. The learned Members of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal called for the relevant record and on perusal of the same, dismissed the original application. The confidential record revealed that the petitioner had earned gradation for the relevant five years as B, B plus, B minus, B and B minus. Thus the average grade of the petitioner came to be B and not B plus. The respondents also stated that in 1997, a charge sheet was sent against the petitioner for departmental inquiry and the same was pending. They further stated that second departmental inquiry was contemplated against petitioner for which a show cause notice was issued to him on 08/03/1999. Having regard to this, the Original Application was dismissed. 5 The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the learned Members of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the petitioner was not communicated with the grades which he had earned during the relevant five years and so, they could not have been used against him for not conferring the selection grade. He placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 2513. The law laid down by the Writ petition 1694/2011 4 Supreme Court in this judgment would have no application to the facts of this case. The petitioner did not contend in the original application that by not communicating the grade he earned during the relevant five years, the authorities violated principles of natural justice. It was not his case that had he been communicated with such grades, he would have made representations and would have attempted to get better grade for the relevant years. All that the petitioner sought in his Original Application was that there was apparently no reason for not conferring selection grade on him. 6 The petitioner in his rejoinder filed in the Original Application conveniently ignored the allegations made in the reply of the respondents in respect of the departmental inquiries initiated in 1997 and 1999 against him. In view of this, the learned members of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal had no occasion to examine the case of the petitioner from the point of view which is put forward before us by placing reliance on the above mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court. The violation of the principles of natural justice, by not indicating to the petitioner the grades which he earned during the relevant five years, was never the petitioner’s contention. Therefore, at this stage, such a contention is not available to the petitioner. Having gone through the judgment of the learned Members of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, we are of the view that the same can not be disturbed. The writ petition stands dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] [D.B. BHOSALE,J.] ts k/2011/march14/wp1694.11/ok Writ petition 1694/2011 5