M.S.L. PATIL, ASTT. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SOLARPUR (MAHARASHTRA) ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 23-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.S.L. PATIL, ASTT. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, 
SOLARPUR (MAHARASHTRA} ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. 
B 
OCTOBER 23, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Service Law : 
C 
Se11iority-l11ter-se se11i01ity between direct rec1uits and promotees-
Ratio fu:ed is 1: 1-Promotees appdi11ted i11 excess of the quota ca11not get the 
e11tire le11gth of se1vice-17iey are to be fitteJ i11 the se11iority list according to 
the Rules--Promotees have 110 right to get illto the post reserved for direct 
recrnits-Ca11y f 01ward rnle 11ot applicable si11ce recrnitment in proportio11 is 
one of the methods of recrnitmellt a11d is required to be made--Civil services 
D (Regulation of Se11iority) Rules, 1982. 
K.C. Joshi & Ors. v. Unio11 of India and Ors., AIR (1991) SC 284 and 
A.N. Sehgal v. Raje Ram Sheoran, [1992) Supp. 1 SCC 304, relied on. 
Indra Sawhney v. U11io11 of I11dia, [1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217, distin· 
E guished. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Sa11jay 17iakre & Ors., [1995) Supp. 2 
sec 407, held applicable and need not be reopened. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C} 
F No. 17913 of 1996. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.1996 of the Maharashtra 
Administrative Tribunal in 0.A.No. 83 of 1996. 
Petitioner-in-Person. 
Raju Ramachandran, M.D. Adkar, P.K. Mullick, S.D. Singh and 
Kumar Parimal for the Petitioner in S.L.P (C} No. 17818/96. 
L.N. Rao and S.U.K. Sagar for the Impleading Party. 
H 
The following Order of the court was delivered : 
644 
M.S.L PATIL v. STATE 
645 
By order dated September 16, 1996 passed by our learned brethren A 
·· Justice N.P. Singh and Justice S.B. Majmudar, placed these matters before 
this Bench, since the controversy had already been decided by this Court 
in a matter in which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J. was a member, viz., State 
of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Sanjay Thakre & Ors., (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 407. 
These cases arise from the common order of the Administrative Tribunal, 
Bombay in Application No.83/96 etc. dismissing the above judgment. 
B 
Mr. M.S.L. Patil, party appearing-in-person has raised five conten-
tions, namely, that the combined seniority as per the rules was to be 
maintained from the date of the regular appointment or promotion. As per 
the rules, the petitioner came to be appointed prior to the appointment of C 
th<! direct recruits. Therefore, the entire length of service rendered by him 
as an Assistant Conservator of Forests requires to be tagged for maintain-
ing his seniority. If so considered, he would be senior to the direct recruits. 
Therefore, they cannot scale march over the promotees. It is also con-
tended that the direct recruits unfilled quota cannot be carried forward. D 
He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union 
of India, (1992] Supp. 3 SCC 217 known as Mandal's case. They were not 
recruited according to rules. He also contended that he was not made a 
party to the earlier proceedings which culminated in the aforesaid judg-
ment. Therefore, the decision passed by this Court is violative of the 
principles of natural justice. He also contended that the third respondent E 
in this case is a direct recruit and has concealed several material facts 
which led to the open judgment by this Court. Shri Raju Ramachandran, 
learned senior counsel appearing for some of the promotees, contended 
that in the earlier case, this Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment has 
specifically stated the premises that specific material has not been placed F 
on record of the appointment of the promotees, viz., whether their promo-
tions were fortuitous or not. The quota rules was broken down between 
the direct recruits and the promotees. Even under Rule 4 of the Civil 
Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982, the second proviso thereto 
gives a power to the Government to certify that the direct recruitment 
could not be made. In view of the stand taken by the Gove~nment in the G 
counter-affidavit filed in the Tribunal that the so-called rule· of quota has 
been broken down, it would amount to certification that it did not make 
regular recruitment; as a result, promotees gain seniority which has to be 
counted from the date of the regular promotion. Thereby, they would be 
senior to the direct recruits. 
H 
646 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
In view of these contentions, the question that arises is : whether the 
judgment of this Court has been vitiated by any error of law warranti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.