Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE AND FOREST DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYAversusDHIRAJ ASHOK SALVE
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Tribunal’s order allowing the respondents’ seniority based on their date of joining is legally valid and not erroneous.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra challenged a Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order that allowed two Assistant Revenue Officers, who cleared the Sub Service Departmental (SSD) examination on their fourth attempt, to have their date of joining considered for seniority placement. The respondents argued that Government Resolutions of 1976, 1979 and 2006 entitled candidates from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified and Nomadic Tribes an extra chance and one additional year to pass departmental exams, and thus their seniority should be based on their joining date. The Tribunal relied on these resolutions and prior Tribunal decisions to allow the respondents' application, placing them at the appropriate seniority positions. The High Court examined the applicability of the resolutions to the SSD exam and found no error of law or jurisdiction in the Tribunal’s decision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the State’s writ petition as being without merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the Government Resolutions dated 24.08.1976, 21.03.1979 and 16.11.2006 apply to the Sub Service Departmental Examination and grant an extra attempt and year to SC/ST/NT candidates.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing the respondents' seniority to be determined on the basis of their date of joining rather than the exam clearance date.
Legislation cited
- Government Resolution dated 16.11.2006
- Government Resolution dated 21.03.1979
- Government Resolution dated 24.08.1976
- Maharashtra State Zilla Parishad District Services Post Recruitment Examination Rules, 1985 — s. Rule 4(3-b)
Subjects
- seniority list
- departmental examination
- extra attempt
- SC/ST/NT
- government resolution
- tribunal order
- service law
- promotion
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41591-DB
{1} WP-1097-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1097 OF 2026
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through: The Chief Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
Name- Rajesh Kumar
Mob. No. 9833246545
E-mail Id. [email protected]
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Region, Nashik,
Dist. Nashik.
Name- Praveen Nilkanthrao Gedam
Mob. No. 9423335135
E-mail Id- [email protected]
3. The District Collector,
Ahmednagar,
Dist. Ahmednagar,
Name- Pankaj Ashiya
Mob. No. 9423335135
E-mail Id.-
[email protected] ...PETITIONERS
[Ori. Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 in O.A.]
VERSUS
1. Dhiraj s/o Ashok Salve
Age: 40 years, Occu. Service,
(Assistant Revenue Officer at Tahsil Office Newasa)
R/o. C/o: Tahsil Office Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Kiran s/o Kadubal Chavan,
Age: 44 years, Occu. Service
(Assistant Revenue Officer at Tashil Office Jamkhed)
R/o. C/o. Tahsil Office, Jamkhed
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS
[Orig. Applicants in O.A.]
{2} WP-1097-2026
Mr. S.R. Wakle, AGP for Petitioner-State
Mr. Rahul Awasarmal, Advocate for Respondents
.......
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 27th JULY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 09th SEPTEMBER, 2026
ORDER : [Per Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.]
1. By this petition, Petitioner-State challenges the judgment and
order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No. 189
of 2018.
2. Facts in nutshell can be stated thus;
Respondents joined the service as Clerk in the Revenue
Department on 22.04.2010 and 22.06.2010 respectively. On
19.01.2018, Respondent No. 3 published provisional seniority list of
employees who have passed the Sub Service Departmental
Examination (‘SSD’ for short) and Revenue Qualifying Examination Test
(‘RQTE’ for short) and those who have exempted from passing S.S.D.
and RQTE examination. The names of Respondents are at serial no. 72
and 73 respectively. Both the Respondents have cleared their SSD
examination on 20.01.2013 in 4th attempt and the said date i.e.
20.01.2013 is considered for their placement in the seniority list. The
{3} WP-1097-2026
other candidates, those who had passed the SSD examination, their
date of joining were considered for placement in the seniority list.
3. Respondents, therefore, approached the Tribunal by filing
Original Application No. 189 of 2018 and contended that their date of
joining be considered for their placement in the seniority list. While
taking objection to the provisional seniority list, Respondents placed
reliance on Government Resolution dated 24.08.1976, they also
contended that they have cleared SSD examination in 4 th attempt
within four years. Without considering the objections of the
Respondents, final seniority list was published on 15.02.2018 wherein
Respondents were placed at serial no. 72 and 73 respectively.
4. The Tribunal allowed the application by taking into consideration
the Government Resolution dated 24.08.1976 as well as Government
Resolution dated 21.03.1979 issued by General Administration
Department, Government Resolution dated 16.11.2006 and the
decision rendered by the Principal Seat of the Tribunal in Original
Applications Nos. 480 of 2021 and 481 of 2021, by which it was held
that Government Resolution dated 24.08.1976 is applicable to the SSD
examination and the candidates belong to Backward Class should be
given one more chance and one more year to pass the departmental
examination.
{4} WP-1097-2026
5. Heard learned AGP for State and learned Advocate for
Respondents at length. Perused the record.
6. Indisputably, the Respondents have cleared SSD examination on
20.01.2013 in 4th attempt, which is permissible in terms of
Government Resolution dated 24.08.1976. The relevant provision of
the said Government Resolution reads thus;
“The Government has now decided that in the
Departmental examination rules for promotion to the
higher posts and Non- Gazetted, in all the Government
offices, a provision should be made therein to the
effect that the candidates from (i) Scheduled Castes,
(ii) Scheduled Tribes and (iii) Denotified Tribes and
Nomadic Tribes, should be given one more chance and
one more year to pass the Departmental examinations,
than is permissible under the rules to other
candidates.”
7. The Government Resolution dated 21.03.1979 issued by General
Administration Department also states that one more chance and a
period of one more year should be given to the candidates belonging
to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Nomadic Tribes to pass the
departmental examination. Government Resolution dated 16.11.2006
also reiterates that one more chance and one more year should be
{5} WP-1097-2026
given to the candidates from Backward Class (SC/ST/NT/VJNT/SBC) to
pass the departmental examination, than is permissible under the rules
to other candidates.
8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7735 of
2013 (Shyam Marotirao Kavle v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others)
had an occasion to consider the similar issue. By relying on Sub Rule
3-b of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra State Zilla Parishad District Services
Post Recruitment Examination Rules, 1985, it is held:
“9. Rule 4 (3-b) was introduced by way of an
amendment with effect from 24.05.1999. Rule 4 (3-b)
gives powers to the Chief Executive Officer in
exceptional circumstances for good and sufficient
reasons to be recorded in writing to grant additional
opportunity not more than two chances or more than
two years to Parishad employee for passing the
examination. It is not disputed by either of the parties
that the Chief Executive Officer had granted additional
chance to the petitioner and the petitioner has passed
the departmental examination in four chances. It
appears that the Chief Executive Officer has granted
opportunity to the petitioner to pass the departmental
examination relying on the Resolution dated
24.08.1976 and/or Government Resolution dated
16.11.2006. Even if, the contention of the learned
Additional Government Pleader is accepted that the
said Government Resolution would not apply to the
petitioner and it would not inure to the benefit of the
petitioner, however, Rule 4 (3-b) empowers the Chief
Executive Officer to give additional chance not more
than two chances to pass the departmental
examination. The petitioner in one additional chance
has passed the departmental examination and
thereafter, is considered for selection. At the time, the
petitioner was promoted on recommendation of the
{6} WP-1097-2026
Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner had
already passed the required examination in four
chances. Courtesy, the Chief Executive Officer who had
given one additional chance to the petitioner. The
same was within his powers, though, the Chief
Executive Officer may have relied on erroneous
Resolution.”
9. In the backdrop of above, we are of the view that the Tribunal is
justified in allowing the Original Application filed by the Respondents
by giving cogent reasons. Reliance by the Tribunal on Government
Resolution dated 24.08.1976 is well placed. There is no illegality or
perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal. No jurisdictional error or
error of law is committed by the Tribunal while allowing the Original
Application.
10. In the light of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the
challenge raised by the Petitioner. Writ Petition being devoid of merit is
dismissed.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
Checking your session…