FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 1639/2009 (Hiraman Upasaji Ramteke vs. State of Maharashtra and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ............................................................................................................................................. CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE,JJ. DATED: 1 st July, 2009. 1. Heard Mr Prashant Gode, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application No. 721/1995 filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that grievance of the petitioner is in respect of placement of the petitioner in the final seniority list, which was published vide Circular dated 1.8.1994. It is contended that the petitioner, in view of the passing of the Departmental Examination, ought to have been placed accordingly in the seniority list. However the Department, ignoring this aspect made wrong placement of the petitioner in the seniority list and, therefore, the action of the respondent in reverting the petitioner in view thereof, is bad in law. 3. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order. In Paragraph 11 (b) of the order, the Tribunal has observed thus: “ b) Keeping in view our finding in respect of the first issue, it is to be noted that the provisional seniority list of M.E.S. Class-II which was under challenge before the Hon’ble High Court and later on this Tribunal, had to be revised by the respondent- authorities accordingly. We have noted that the respondent -authorities carried out this exercise and duly published provisional revised list giving an opportunity to all concerned to submit their objections, if any, vide their Circular dated 8.11.1993. Thereafter the final list was published vide Circular dated 1.8.1994. Based on this final list of M.E.S. Class II Officers, the impugned order of reversion was issued on 6.9.1995. Subsequent order of posting issued on 13.9.1995 is in pursuance and as a consequence thereof. We are unable to find any fault with these two orders and it is established beyond doubt based on material before us that both the orders are valid and legally sustainable. Our finding, therefore, in respect of the second issue also is in the affirmative.” 4. In view of the above-referred observations made by the Tribunal, we have specifically asked the learned counsel as to whether the petitioner has submitted any objection to the provisional seniority list published by the Department vide Circular dated 8.11.1993. However the document which is annexed with the petition, on the basis of which the petitioner wants to contend that it is the objection submitted by the petitioner, cannot be accepted, because the date mentioned on the said document is of 1992, which cannot be treated to be an objection submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the provisional seniority list published vide Circular dated 8.11.1993. In such a situation as well as considering the findings recorded by the Tribunal, we are of the view that no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare