1 ASWP-3272-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3272 OF 2011 Shri R.S.Warekar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr.Ratan Kumar Samal for petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. September 26, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who is aggrieved by the dismissal of Original Application No.1451 of 2009 by the Maharashtra Administrative tribunal on 7th May 2010. 2. The petitioner came to be appointed as a direct recruit to the post of Higher Grade Stenographer on 28/3/1995. On 5/6/2007 the respondents 2 ASWP-3272-2011 had published a common seniority list of Higher Grade Stenographers for Greater Bombay Region as well as the Moffusil Region. This seniority list was considered for promotions to the post of Personal Assistant and, therefore, on 19/6/2007 the petitioner submitted a representation against preparation of such a common seniority list and more particularly the seniority granted to respondent no.5. As there was no reply or satisfactory reply from the Department, the petitioner filed O.A. No.217 of 2008 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 11/4/2008. Three issues were agitated in the said O.A. before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by the petitioner viz. (1) the preparation of seniority list was not made on the basis of rotio of 1:1 between the promotees and the direct recruits, (2) failure to prepare a separate seniority list for Higher Grade Stenographers (Marathi) and Higher Grade Stenographers (English) and (3) the seniority list could not have been combined for the Greater Mumbai Region as well as the Moffusil Region. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 2/4/2009 rejected the first two grounds and held in favour of the petitioner on the third ground. The O.A. No.217 of 2008 came to be disposed off in terms of the following directions: 3 ASWP-3272-2011 “12. The applicant has prayed for setting aside the orders of promotion to the post of P.A. dated 19.6.2007. However, on the basis of the material on record, it cannot be stated as to whether the said promotions are legal or note. Hence we are not inclined to grant the said relief to the applicant in the present application. However, the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are hereby directed not to prepare a combined list of Higher Grade Stenographers working in the office of Greater Bombay and the Higher Grade Stenographers working in the offices outside the Greater Bombay (Moffusil) for the purposes of promotion to the post of P.A., but give the promotions to the posts of P.A. from both the categories. The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to prepare such separate lists and then examine the cases of Respondent Nos.5 to 10 and applicant and find out on the basis of such separate lists as to whether they are entitled for promotion and then take consequential steps within three months from today....” 3. Accordingly on 2/6/2009 the respondents published a seniority list 4 ASWP-3272-2011 of Higher Grade Stenographers for the Greater Bombay Region and on 12/6/2009 the petitioner submitted his representation pointing out that the seniority of respondent nos.5 and 6 was erroneous and they ought to have been shown juniors to him. After taking into consideration the representation submitted by the petitioner and others, the department published a final seniority list on 25/6/2009 for the post of Higher Grade Stenographer for the Greater Mumbai Region. Thus in O.A. No.1451 of 2009 the challenge of the petitioner was restricted to the seniority of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 and solely on the ground that they were never promoted to the post of Higher Grade Stenographer. 4. The Tribunal considered the submissions made by the rival parties including the record placed before it by the Department. It noted that respondent no.5 – Shri Tambe was initially appointed on the post of Clerk with shorthand allowance but he was later appointed through MPSC on the post of Clerk cum Typist in the year 1979 and vide order dated 25/9/1979 his services were allotted to the Sales Tax office as Clerk cum Typist. He was promoted as Lower Grade Stenographer on 4/2/1982 and as Higher Grade Stenographer on 11/11/1982 as per the provisional list of Higher Grade Stenographers published in January 1998 and as on 5 ASWP-3272-2011 31/12/1996. Similarly respondent no.6 was appointed to the post of Steno Typist through MPSC vide GAD’s letter dated 8/8/1997. He was promoted as Lower Grade Stenographer on 2/6/1983 and as Higher Grade Stenographer on 10/6/1987. As noted earlier the petitioner came to be appointed as a direct recruit to the post of Higher Grade Stenographer for the first time on 28/3/1995. 5. While challenging the seniority of respondent no.5 it was contended by the petitioner before the Tribunal that after respondent no.5 was promoted as Lower Grade Stenographer on 4/2/1982 he was required to put in minimum three years of service for being eligible to be promoted as Higher Grade Stenographer and the said period of three years was not completed when the said respondent was in fact promoted as Higher Grade Stenographer on 11/11/1982. The Tribunal did not entertain this challenge for the simple reason that the seniority list of Higher Grade Stenographers as on 31/12/1996 was published in January 1998 and at no point of time the petitioner had raised any objection to the said seniority list in which the respondent nos.5 and 6 were shown to be senior to him and their dates of appointment as Higher Grade Stenographers were also recorded. In service mattes it is well settled that the issue of seniority 6 ASWP-3272-2011 cannot be allowed to be a floating concept and if the seniority which is settled was not challenged within a reasonable time, belated challenge cannot be entertained. For about nine years the petitioner did not challenge the seniority list published in January 1998 in which the respondent nos.5 and 6 were shown senior to him. The Tribunal also noted that the GR dated 16/7/1998 which was relied upon by the petitioner was not applicable to the respondent nos.5 and 6. 6. We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order dated 7th May 2010 passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference and this petition must fail at the threshold. The petition is rejected summarily. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)