THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. versus KISHOR M. GADHAVE PATIL & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 8 S.C.R. 1021 · Decided: 05-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 8 S.C.R. 1021 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
v. 
KISHOR M. GADHAVE PATIL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 11199 of2017) 
SEPTEMBER 05, 2017 
(R.K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.( 
A 
B 
Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointments, Conditions of 
Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984 - r.30(5)(6) - Respondents 
were appointed by the State Government as Additional Government 
C 
Pleaders (Addl.GP)/Assistant Government Pleaders (AGP)/ 
Additional Public Prosecutors (APP) for a Bench of the High Court 
- Respondents accepted their appointment and started functioning 
by discharging their duties in Courts in terms of their appointment 
orders - However, the State Government passed an order and 
cancelled the appointments of.all the respondents by taking recourse D 
to the powers u/r.30(5) of the Rules -Aggrieved, respondents filed 
writ petition before High Court, which quashed the order of 
cancellation - On appeal, held: During the pendency of the appeal, 
the term of respondents on their respective posts had expired on 
different dates - Now, that even if the impugned order of High Court 
is upheld, the respondents would still not be entitled to continue E · 
·anymore on the post because their respective terms have come to an 
end by efjlux of time during the pendency of the appeal - Further, 
if the cancellation order is upheld, the question of granting any 
relief to respondents would not arise - In the facts and circumstances 
of the case, iflwould be just and proper and in the interest of justice 
F 
to modify the order of cancellation by treating the same to have 
been passed u/r.30(6) of the Rules - Since, order has been modified 
by treating it to have been passed ulr.30(6), the State directed to 
ensure compliance of r.30(6) and accordingly pay one months 
retainer ·in lieu of notice period to each respondent as was fixed in 
G 
their respective appointment letters - Service Law - Cancellation 
of appointments. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Even if the impugned order of the High Court is 
upheld, the respondents would still not be entitled to continue H 
1021 
1022 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A any more on the post because their respective terms have come 
to an end by efflux of time during the pendency of this appeal. It 
is also not in dispute that the said terms were not extended by 
the State and rather curtailed before its expiry period by issuing 
the cancellation order which was impugned in the writ petition 
B 
before the High Court. It is also not in dispute that if the 
cancellation order is upheld, the question of granting any relief 
to respondents would not arise. (Para 111 (1024-G-H; 1025-A-Bl 
2. Having regard to the background facts, nature of 
controversy, the subsequent events and the consequences which 
are likely to result due to subsequent events occurring in the 
C case, it would be just and proper and in the interest of justice to 
modify the order of cancellation by treating the same to have 
been passed under Rule 30(6) of the Maharashtra Law Officers 
(Appointments, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 
1984. In other words, the interest of justice would be fully met if 
D the cancellation order is held to have been passed under to Rule 
30(6). (Para 19) [1026-D-EJ 
3. Since, the order dated 28.08.2015 has been modified by 
treating it to have been passed under Rule 30(6), the State is 
directed to ensure compliance of Rule 30(6) and accordingly pay 
E one month's retainer in lieu of notice period to each respondent 
as was fixed in their respective appointment letters. [Para 201 
(1026-F) 
4. The State would be free to consider the cases of any of 
the respondents for their appointment on any of the post in future, 
F in case, if the State so desires and while so considering, the 
cancellation order dated 28.08.2015 originally passed by the State 
and now modified by this Court including any observations made 
by the High Court would not come in their way. (Para 22) (1026-
G-H) 
G 
H 
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. v. State of U.P & 
Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 212: (1990) 1 Suppl. SCR 625 ; 
State of U.P & Am: v. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714 : 
(2004) 1 Suppl. SCR 560 ; State of U.P & Ors. v. Ajay 
Kumar Sharma & Am: (2016) 15 SCC 289 - referred 
to. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. K.ISHOR M. 
I 023 
GADHAVE PATIL & ORS. 
Case Law Reference 
[1990) 1 Suppl. SCR 625 
referred to 
Para 13 
[2004) 1 Suppl. SCR 560 
referred to 
Para 13 
c2016) 15 se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.