1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 188 OF 2003 ... Shri Gopalrao Bhimrao Ganachari ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondent ... Mr.R.C.Gosavi for the Petitioners. Mr.J.S.Saluja, AGP for the Respondents Nos.1 & 2. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & R.G.KETKAR, JJ DATED: 31th August, 2009 P.C.: 1. By this Petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 8th February, 2002 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.118 of 2002. 2 2. The facts that are relevant are that the Petitioner joined service of the Government as peon in Class-IV Cadre on 12-4-1950. Thereafter, he was appointed as Case Writer on 12-1-1958. The post of Case Writer was also in Class-IV. The Petitioner, it appears was not a matriculate when he joined the service in the Class-IV or when he was appointed as the Case Writer. The Petitioner passed his S.S.C. in October, 1959 and thereafter he was appointed as a Junior Clerk by order dated 26-3-1960. The Petitioner approached the Maharasthra Administrative Tribunal by filing his Original Application. The principal prayers in his Application were prayer clause 9(a) and 9(b). They read as under: 9(a) By a suitable order/ direction, this Hon ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set Aside the 3 order dated 17-8-2000 passed by the Respondent No.1 under which the Petitioner was informed that the posts of Case Writer and Clerk belong to different cadres and though the payscale of the said cadres is same, that the said cadres are the amalgamated and further that duties and responsibilities of both cadres are entirely different and therefore, request of the Petitioner to count his service rendered in the post of Case Writer towards the post of Junior clerk and to grant him deemed date etc. and also to have pay fixation cannot be accepted, and accordingly, the Petitioner be granted all the consequential service benefits. 4 9(b) By a suitable order/direction, this Hon.Tribunal may be pleased to hold and declare that the Petitioner was/is entitled to count his service in the post of Case Writer rendered from 12-1-1958 to 25-3-1960 for the purpose of seniority and for other purpose in all the subsequent posts and consequently, the Petitioner be given deemed date and all monetary benefits. 3. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal decided the O.A. Filed by the Petitioner by order dated 8-2-2002. It held that the service of the Petitioner as a Case Writer cannot be counted for the purpose of fixing his seniority in the post of Junior Clerk, and therefore, he cannot be granted 5 deemed date in the Cadre of Junior Clerk considering his service in the post of Case Writer. It is this order which is challenged in this petition. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that one Mr.Kulkarni joined the service after the Petitioner, but service rendered by him in Class-IV has been considered for the purpose of his promotion, whereas the services of the Petitioner rendered in Class-IV has not been so considered. Therefore, Mr.Kulkarni was promoted to the higher post before the Petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that it is also not correct that for being eligible to the post of Junior Clerk, matriculation was essential educational qualification. 6 5. Now, perusal of the order of the Maharasthra Administrative Tribunbal shows that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that for being eligible to the post of Junior Clerk the essential educational qualification is Matriculation. The Petitioner passed his S.S.C. Examination in October, 1959 and he was promoted to the post of Junior Clerk on 26-3-1960. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is not able to show to us that the finding recorded by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal that the Matriculation was essential educational qualification for the post of Junior Clerk is wrong. The learned Counsel submitted that in the case of Mr.Kulkarni, the services rendered by him in the post of Guard was taken into consideration. But the learned Counsel could not show that the finding 7 recorded by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in its order that even the services rendered by Mr.Kulkarni as Security Guard was not taken into consideration while fixing his seniority is wrong. The learned Counsel also made a grievance as the service rendered by the Petitioner in Class-IV was not taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing his seniority in the cadre of Junior Clerk, then how Kulkarni came to be promoted in 1994 to the higher post and the Petitioner came to be promoted to the higher post in 1996. In our opinion, this question cannot be probed by us. Because Perusal of the Original Application shows that promotion of Mr.Kulkarni to any higher post was not under challenge before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Mr.Kulkarni was also not joined as a party to the O.A. In the absence of Mr.Kulkarni neither his placement 8 in the seniority list as a junior clerk can be probed nor validity or otherwise of his promotion to the higher post can be considered. 6. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)