A
LOKNARAYAN PANDE AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
OCTOBER 7, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Service Law:
Maharashtra Subordinate Police Service-Head Constables-
C
Regularisatio~onsideration for promotion as Sub-lnspecto~Held,
petitioners did not file their willingness within the prescribed period-On their
own inaction, they have committed def ault--Govemment was right in not
considering their claims.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
D No. 19487 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.96 of the Maharastra
Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in O.A. No. 492 of 1994.
· G.L. Sanghi, N.R. Choudhury, Deepak Bhattacharjee and Somnath
E Mukherjee for the Petitioners.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This petition has been filed against the order of the Maharashtra
Administrative' Tribunal made on 10.5.1996 in OA No. 492/94 and batch.
The petitioners are Head Constables in Maharashtra Subordinate
Police Service and on the earlier occasion when they had filed writ petitions
in the High Court, the High Court by order dated 30.4.1991 had directed
that it would be open to the petitioners to participate in the regularisation
process of the candidates who appeared in the year 1991 provided they
G filed their willingness within two months from the date of the order. The
marks secured in the written examinations conducted in 1984-85 would be
restored and the marks secured in the interview etc. would be taken into
account. In case they were found eligible on merit, they were to be placed
in the merit list and considered according to rules for promotion as
H Sub-Inspector. Admittedly, the petitioners had not filed the willingness
216
~·
LOKNARAYAN PANDEv. STATE
217
within two months as directed by the High Court. They filed a special leave A
petition against the order and this Court had dismissed the same. We are
informed that they filed their undertakings within two months thereafter.
When they were nm being considered and requisition was sought to be
made, the Government did not accept their applications. Thus, they have
filed the present petition.
B
Shri Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has
brought to our notice a circular issued by the Government in which
permission was granted to conduct the int~rview afresh. It would appear
that another batch of candidates has approached the Tribunal and ob-
tained the same order from the Tribunal on the basis of which the Govern-
C
ment have issued the aforesaid order. Placing reliance thereon, it is
contended that since the Government have given three months' time in the
said circular, the petitioners are also entitled to avail of that benefit of
appearing for regularisation. It is also contended on the basis of the
instructions issued across the Bar by the instructing counsel that the
Director General of Police had not conducted the examinations even for D
the year 1991 as pointed out by the High Court and, therefore, the
petitioners cannot be denied of the right to appear for viva voce as directed
by the Division Bench.
We cannot give any acceptance to the contention for the reason that
when the High Court had prescribed the time limit of two months and
when the petitioners had approached this Court against the direction given
by the High Court, the necessary consequence would be that either they
should have sought for extension of time from the High Court or they
should have sought further time from this Court for giving written under-
taking. Unfortunately, they did not seek such extension of time. The
Government, therefore, was right in not considering their claims after filing
the writ petition. Mere fact that another batch of people had approached
the Tribunal and obtained similar orders directed by the High Court and
E
F
the Government had directed them to avail of that remedy as per the
circular, would not furnish any further cause of action to the petitioners to G
avail of that remedy. On their own inaction, the petitioners have committed
default and they have to face the consequences.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
R.P.
Petition dismissed.
Lex