1 CR.W.P.NO.1152 OF 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.793 OF 2011 (With CA No.2285/2011) Rajaram s/o Chokhoba Sarwade, Age : 42 years, Occu. Service, r/o. c/o Loha Municipal Council, Loha, District Nanded. ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Chief Secretary, General Administration Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.B.Talekar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.N.B.Khandare, Government Pleader, for respondents. ... CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE AND S.B.DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE:July 4th, 2011 ... PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 CR.W.P.NO.1152 OF 2010 2. This writ petition, basically, challenges the judgment and order dated Dec., 15th, 2010, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby the petitioner's Original Application No.173/2010 has been dismissed. In the Application before the Tribunal, the petitioner sought direction to the respondents to absorb him as Chief Officer, Grade II (Group B) in the employment of Urban Development Department, pursuant to his appointment vide Government Resolution dt. 31.10.2002, issued by the said Department. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 13.7.2009, refusing to absorb the applicant as Chief Officer in the Municipal Council. 3. The petitioner had applied for the post of Desk Officer pursuant to the notification inviting applications for State Services (Main) Examination, 1999, published by Maharashtra Public Service Commission (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred as "M.P.S.C."). He was selected to the post of Desk Officer on merits and in accordance with the preference given by him. His name was accordingly recommended by the M.P.S.C. for appointment as Desk Officer, (Grade B). However, for the reasons, as reflected in the Government 3 CR.W.P.NO.1152 OF 2010 Resolution dt.13th Feb.,2006 (Exh.E), the petitioner was appointed as Chief Officer, Grade II, Municipal Council. Thereafter, vide the Government Resolution dt. 13th February 2006, the applicant was informed to appear for the Departmental Examination and after passing the same, to report to the Desk Officer in Mantralaya. The applicant reported to the Desk Officer on 9.3.2006 and 10.3.2006. The applicant, thereafter, was appointed as Desk Officer on probation vide appointment order dt. 14.3.2006. He was allowed to join as Desk Officer on 18.3.2006 and was sent for basic training as well as field training vide order dt. 25.4.2006. His Probation was terminated on successful completion of probation. However, the date of his appointment is shown as 22.9.2004, instead of 14.8.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation in April, 2008 (Exhibit 'O' to the petition), whereby he sought absorption as Chief Officer pursuant to his appointment vide Government Resolution dt. 31.10.2002. 4. The Tribunal has considered all the contentions as raised by the petitioner in the present petition and in its order dt.15.12.2010, in paragraph No.8 and 9, observed thus: 4 CR.W.P.NO.1152 OF 2010 "8. .... It is, thus evident that applicant was selected as Desk Officer because, there was review of the posts of Desk Officers, he was accommodated as Chief Officer Grade-II of Municipal Council from September, 2002 to his taking over as Desk Officer in March, 2006. He has accepted the conditions as laid down in GR dtd.13.2.2006 before taking the assignment as Desk Officer. The copy of the undertaking is at p.b. page 30. 9. In the circumstances, it is not possible to entertain the prayer for absorption in the cadre of Chief Officers Grade-II or to quash the communication, which refused such absorption. We have taken a note that previous service is given credit for the purpose of pensionary benefits and leave. " (Emphasis supplied) 5. Mr. Talekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently, submitted that the petitioner was forced to give consent under threat that if he did not give written assurance (HAMIPATRA), as provided for in the Government Resolution dt.13.2.2006, he would not only lose the post of Desk Officer but, would also lose the post, which he was holding i.e. the post of Chief Officer. 6. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Talekar. We have perused the 5 CR.W.P.NO.1152 OF 2010 Resolution dt.13th Feb.,2006. From bare perusal of the said Resolution, it is clear that the Government, in view of petitioner's selection as Desk Officer earlier, had only sought his consent by way of assurance deed/letter stating that all the conditions as mentioned in the said Government resolution are acceptable to him. Accordingly, petitioner gave assurance deed/letter/undertaking (Exh.G to the writ petition). Moreover, we do not find that there was any threat to his posting as Chief Officer if he had not given consent/assurance deed/undertaking as per the Government Resolution dated 13.2.2006. A plain reading of the Government Resolution, as a matter of fact, gave choice to the petitioner, on the conditions mentioned therein, either to accept the posting as Desk Officer or to continue as Chief Officer. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has considered the matter in proper perspective and has rightly dismissed the Original Application, for the reasons recorded therein. The petitioner, in our opinion, accepted the post of Desk Officer for which he was selected, on the conditions mentioned in the Government Resolution dt.13th Feb.,2006, and, in view thereof, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that he had kept lien on the post of Chief Officer, when he accepted the post of Desk Officer. 6 CR.W.P.NO.1152 OF 2010 We find no merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the pending Civil Application (No. 2285/2011) is also dismissed. (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) ... (agp:793-11wp )