- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 169/1999 Kum.Shantabai d/o Shankarrao Gaware, age 31 yrs., occu.service r/o Manwat Tq.Pathri Dist.Parbhani. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra. 2] The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad. 3] The District Deputy Registrar, C.S. Parbhani. 4] The Agril. Produce Market Committee, Manwat Tq.Pathri Dist.Parbhani. Through its Secretary. 5] Sandipan s/o Sitaram Hoge, age major, occu.service as Assistant Secretary, A.P.M.C., Manwat. Tq.Pathri Dist.Parbhani. 6] Vithal s/o Kashinath Raner, age major, occu.service as Supervisor, A.P.M.C., Manwat Tq.Pathri Dist.Parbhani. - 2 - 7] Sanjay s/o Narharrao Sable, age major, occu.service, r/o Manwat Tq.Pathri c/o A.P.M.C., Manwat Tq.Pathri Dist.Parbhani. 8] The Minister for Cooperation and Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ...Respondents... ..... Shri B.N. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.Rekha K. Ladda, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 & 8. Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent no.4. Shri S.S. Manale, Advocate for respondent nos.5 to 7. ..... CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 05.08.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Gavai, J.): 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner prays for setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.8 to the extent it confirms the order of the respondent no.7 on the post of Supervisor made by the respondent no.4 – A.P.M.C. - 3 - 3] The petitioner was appointed as Clerk with effect from 1.10.1989 with the respondent no.4 – APMC. In the year 1995, nine employees were directly appointed including the respondent no.7 as Supervisor. The respondent nos.5 & 6 were promoted. 4] The petitioner, therefore, preferred a revision u/s 43 of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act before the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 came to the conclusion that the APMC had erred in appointing the respondent no.7 directly, ignoring the backlog and, therefore, directed cancellation of appointment of the respondent no.7 on the post of Supervisor. The revisional authority further directed that the promotion be given to the petitioner with retrospective effect from the date of appointment of the respondent no.7 i.e. 1.4.1995. The respondent no.7 went in appeal before the Hon’ble Minister – respondent no.8. The respondent no. 8, though finding no fault with the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, however, found that it was not justifiable to quash and set aside the appointment order of the respondent no.7. 5] Subsequently, the respondent – APMC has absorbed both – the petitioner as well as the respondent no.7 on the post of Supervisor. 6] Though the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the Hon’ble Minister to the extent it directs confirmation of appointment of the respondent no.7, since the respondent no.7 has worked on the said post for almost one and half - 4 - decade, we are not inclined to consider the prayer in that respect. However, the fact remains that appointment of the respondent no.7 was found to be improper by the Divisional Joint Registrar, which order has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Minister. The learned Divisional Joint Registrar had found that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed with effect from 1.4.1995. In that view of the matter, the APMC ought to have given effect to the said order. 7] We, therefore, direct that the petitioner shall be given deemed date in the cadre of Supervisor from 1.4.1995. It is further ordered that the petitioner should be shown senior to the respondent no.7 in the seniority list. The benefit of the deemed date shall be given for all the purposes except arrears of salary. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c58102