Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE AND FORESE DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYAversusMADANSING SHIVSING GUSINGE
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Tribunal was correct in applying the Government Resolutions and Rule 4(3‑b) to allow the respondent’s seniority to be counted from the date of passing the SSD examination, and the High Court dismissed the State’s challenge.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra challenged a Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order that altered the seniority of a clerk, Madansingh Shivsing Gusinge, by considering his seniority from the date he passed the Sub Services Departmental (SSD) examination on 15‑02‑2012 rather than his date of joining on 26‑02‑2009. Gusinge contended that the Tribunal erred in applying the seniority change despite his passing the SSD exam in the fourth attempt, which is permissible under several Government Resolutions granting backward‑class candidates an extra chance and an additional year to clear departmental exams. The Tribunal relied on the 24‑08‑1976 Government Resolution and similar resolutions of 1979 and 2006, as well as precedent from the Court’s own decision in Shyam Marotirao Kavle v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 7735 of 2013). The High Court examined the applicability of these resolutions and the relevant rule (Rule 4(3‑b) of the Maharashtra State Zilla Parishad District Services Post Recruitment Examination Rules, 1985) and found no error in the Tribunal’s reasoning. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal’s order and disposing of the accompanying civil application.
Issues considered
- Whether the Government Resolution dated 24‑08‑1976 and subsequent resolutions apply to the calculation of seniority for a clerk who passed the SSD examination in the fourth attempt.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in altering the seniority of the respondent by considering the date of passing the SSD examination instead of the date of joining service.
- Whether the provisions of Rule 4(3‑b) of the Maharashtra State Zilla Parishad District Services Post Recruitment Examination Rules, 1985, support the Tribunal’s decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- seniority list
- departmental examination
- backward classes
- government resolution
- tribunal order
- writ petition
- administrative law
- reservation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41592-DB
{1} WP-3617-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3617 OF 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1032 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3617 OF 2024
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Additional Chief Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The District Collector,
Collector Office, Parbhani. ...PETITIONERS
[Ori. Respondents]
VERSUS
1. Madansingh Shivsing Gusinge
Age: 34 years, Occu. Govt. Service,
Awal Karloon, Office of Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ...Orig. Applicant
2. Datta Rameshrao Raut
Age: 46 years, Occu. Govt. Service
Tahsil Office, Manwat,
Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani ...RESPONDENTS
[Orig. Resp. No. 4]
Mr. S.R. Wakle, AGP for Petitioner-State
Mr. Jiwan J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Ashish Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
.......
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 27th JULY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 09th SEPTEMBER, 2026
{2} WP-3617-2024
ORDER : [Per Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.]
1. By this petition, Petitioner-State challenges the judgment and
order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No. 171
of 2022.
2. Facts in nutshell can be stated thus;
Respondent No. 1 joined the service as Clerk on 26.02.2009. In
the merit list Respondent No. 1 was at serial no. 2 and Respondent No.
2 was at serial no. 3. Petitioner No. 3- District Collector published a
seniority list on 06.05.2014 and in the said list Petitioner No. 3 has
considered the seniority of Respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 26.02.2009. In the
said seniority list Respondent No. 2 was shown at serial no. 118 and
Respondent No. 1 was shown at serial no. 116. Petitioner No. 3 revised
the seniority list of Clerk/Typist cadre and the provisional seniority list
was published on 21.10.2021, however, Respondent No. 1 did not
received any communication in that regard. Final seniority list of
Clerk/Typist cadre was published on 24.01.2022 and in the said
seniority list Respondent No. 1 is placed at serial no. 203 and
Respondent No. 2 who was shown junior to Respondent No. 1 in the
earlier seniority list is placed at serial No. 168. The seniority of
Respondent No. 1 was considered w.e.f. 15.02.2012 i.e. the date of his
{3} WP-3617-2024
passing Sub Services Departmental Examination (“S.S.D.” for short) in
the seniority list published on 24.01.2022 whereas in the earlier
seniority list published on 06.05.2014 it was considered w.e.f.
26.02.2009 i.e. the date of his joining the service.
3. Aggrieved by said change, Respondent No. 1 approached the
Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 171/2022 contending that in
the final seniority list of Clerk/Typist cadre published on 24-01-2022
the seniority of Respondent No. 1 is considered w.e.f . 15.02.2012 i.e.
the date of passing the SSD examination. Respondent No. 1 has
passed the SSD examination in 4th attempt within four years, and
therefore, Petitioner no.3 has considered the seniority of the
Respondent No. 1 from date of his passing the SSD examination.
4. The Tribunal allowed the application by taking into consideration
the Government Resolution dated 24.08.1976 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-3617-2024
5. Heard learned AGP for State and learned Advocates for
Respondents at length. Perused the record.
6. Indisputably, the Respondents have cleared SSD examination on
15.02.2012 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-3617-2024
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-3617-2024
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.”
09. In the backdrop of above, we are of the view that the Tribunal is
justified in allowing the Original Application filed by the Respondent
No. 1 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.
11. In view of disposal of writ petition, civil application stands
disposed of.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
Checking your session…