1 wp1767-11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1767/2011 Suresh Vinayak Tambat .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents .... Mr.Sujeet D. Joshi,Adv.for petitioner. Mr.T.S.Lodhe,AGP for respondent-State. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 24th NOVEMBER ,2011 ORAL ORDER 1] Heard. 2 wp1767-11.odt 2] The petitioner was in service since 8/3/1966 in Public Health Department. It is contended that the post of Assistant Director of Health Services [Transport] was advertised by Maharashtra Public Service Commission. According to the petitioner, it was an isolated post and it was reserved for candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste. It is stated that the advertisement was cancelled on the request made by Public Health Department by communication dated 5/9/1999. 3] The petitioner was reverted in the year 1989. The order of reversion was challenged in the High Court by filing Writ Petition No.1303/91. The said Petition was transferred to Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur after its establishment. It was numbered as Transfer Application No.3817/91. By order dated 25/9/2002, in Transfer Application, the Tribunal observed as under : “14] It is apparent from the record that the impugned order was stayed by the 3 wp1767-11.odt Hon’ble High Court and said interim relief is continued and in the meanwhile, the petitioner stood retired. Consequently, it will have to be inferred and held that the petitioner stood retired on superannuation from the post of Service Manager in MM & HS [Class-II] from service. In the end, with above observations and directions, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.4.91 issued by respondent no.1 [Annex A] is hereby quashed and set aside. This Tribunal further hold that the petitioner stood retired on superannuation from the post of Service Manager in MM & HS [Class-II] from service. No costs.” 4] The Original Application No.629/98 was filed claiming promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Health Services. In the meanwhile, the petitioner stood retired on 31/10/1999. 5] The Original Application No.629/98 was dismissed by an order dated 22/7/2009. The said order is impugned herein. 6] The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Tribunal has not addressed the issues raised by the petitioner. The dismissal is on the ground of suppression of facts. The counsel 4 wp1767-11.odt referred to order passed in M.A.No.277/10 filed in the Original Application which came to be rejected by order dated 28/10/10. The learned counsel for petitioner relied on the two reported cases in Prem Kishan Mohla & Ors V/s Union of India reported in 1987 AIR [SC]-0-1650, 1987-SLR-4-13202 and in Rambhau V/s Shantabai reported in 1998 SCC -8- 324. 7] We have perused the documents, impugned orders placed before us. We have also perused the judgments cited supra. 8] During the course of hearing, it transpired that the High Court had admitted the Petition filed in the year 1991 against the order of reversion and had granted interim relief. The petitioner has not placed before this Court memo of Petition or the order passed by High Court. It also transpires that during the course of hearing the Tribunal passed an order of interim relief in the proceedings of Original Application No.629/98, whereby respondent department was directed not to fill in the post of Assistant Director of Health Services. Probably, due to this order passed by the Tribunal, the 5 wp1767-11.odt post could not be filled in and in the process, petitioner got retired and the two other employees who were senior to the petitioner also got retired. The petitioner’s contention is that as the post was isolated and the fact that the two other employees who were senior to the petitioner got retired, petitioner ought to get benefits of promoted post of Assistant Director of Health Services. 9] Considering the facts of the case, it was incumbent on the petitioner to have fairly produced copies of all relevant orders before Tribunal, the absence of which amounts to suppression of material facts before the Court. The Tribunal has rightly considered this issue in its proper perspective and dismissed the Original Application on the ground of suppression of facts of the case. We do not find any glaring error in the order of the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the petitioner has no case on merits. The Petition is dismissed. (T.V.NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.) umg/wp1767-11