Nitin Ravindra Kedar And ANR v. The State Of Maha Thr. Sec. Home Dept. And ORS

Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date:

2023.10.10 15:32:46 +0530 TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Trupti 1 22-wp-1662-2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1662 OF 2023 Nitin S/o. Ravindra Kedar and Another ...

Petitioners V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and Others ...

Respondents ......

Mr.Govind B. Solanke for the Petitioners.

Mr. R.P. Kadam, AGP for the Respondent -State. ......

CORAM :

NITIN JAMDAR AND MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE :

4 OCTOBER 2023 P.C. :

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

The Petitioners have challenged the order dated 17 October 2022 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal), Mumbai dismissing Original Application No. 82 of 2021 filed by the Petitioners.

3.

In the Original Application, the Petitioners had sought a direction to Respondent No.2- the Commissioner of Police, Pune to appoint the Petitioners on the post of Police Bandsman. 4.

Respondent No.2-the Commissioner of Police published an advertisement on 5 February 2018 for filling up the post of Police.

Trupti 2 22-wp-1662-2023.doc Out of which, 10 posts were for Band Squad. The Petitioners applied pursuant to the advertisement. The selection process was complete and the Petitioners were not given appointment and, therefore, the Petitioners filed the Original Application on 23 January 2021. The Original Application was opposed by the Respondents by filing reply affidavit. After condoning the delay in filing the Original Application, the Original Application was rejected by the Tribunal by the impugned order.

5.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that while condoning the delay in filing the Original Application, the Tribunal has observed in favour of the Petitioners and having once condoning the delay, the Original Application could not have rejected on the ground of delay again. The Tribunal has not accepted this argument. 6.

Firstly, it is to be noted that in the order condoning the delay, the Tribunal has observed that the posts have been filled up of meritorious candidates and at that stage, after they have put four years of service, their appointments cannot be cancelled. The Tribunal then observed that it be explained if the Petitioners can be accommodated against any vacancies. When the Original Application came up for consideration, the Tribunal was informed that there are no vacancies. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly observed that no order could be passed. As regards accommodation in future vacancies are concerned, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners

Trupti 3 22-wp-1662-2023.doc informs that the Petitioners are age barred. Because the Tribunal condoned the delay to hear the matter on merits does not mean that the Tribunal was precluded from taking into consideration the events that have occurred after the impugned selection process. 7.

The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)