Pande & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors  INSC 1257 (7 October
O R D
petition has been filed against the order of the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal made on 10.5.1996 in OA No.492/94 and batch.
petitioners are Head Constables in Maharshtra Subordinate Police Service and on
the earlier occasion when they had filed writ petitions in the High Court, the
High Court by order dated 30.4.1991 had directed that it would be open to the
petitioners to participate in the regularisation process of the candidates who
appeared in the year 1991 provided they filed their willingness within two
months from the date of the order. The marks secured in the written
examinations conducted in 1984-85 would be restored and the marks secured in
the interview etc. would be taken into account. In case they were found
eligible on merit, they were to be placed in the merit list and considered
according to rules for promotion as Sub-Inspector. Admittedly, the petitioners
had not filed the willingness within two months as directed by the High Court.
They filed a special leave petition against the order and this Court had
dismissed the same. We are informed that they filed their undertakings within two
months thereafter. When they were not being considered and requisition was
sought to be made, the Government did not accept their applications. Thus, they
have filed the present petition.
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has brought to our notice
a circular issued by the Government in which permission was granted to conduct
the interview afresh. It would appear that another batch of candidates has
approached the Tribunal and obtained the same order from the Tribunal on the basis
of which the Government have issued the aforesaid order. Placing reliance
thereon, it is contended that since the Government have given three months'
time in the said circular, the petitioners are also entitled to avail of that
benefit of appearing for regularisation. It is also contended on the basis of
the instructions issued across the Bar by the instructing counsel that the
Director General of Police had not conducted the examinations even for the year
1991 as pointed out by the High Court and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be
denied of the right to appear for viva voce as directed by the Division Bench.
cannot give any acceptance to the contention for the reason that when the High
Court had prescribed the time limit of two months and when the petitioners had
approached this Court against the direction given by the High Court, the
necessary consequence would be that either they should have sought for
extension of time from the High Court or they should have sought further time
from this Court for giving written undertaking. Unfortunately, they did not
seek such extension of time. The Government, therefore, was right in not
considering their claims after filing the writ petition. Mere fact that another
batch of people had approached the Tribunal and obtained similar orders
directed by the High Court and the Government had directed them to avail of
that remedy as per the circular, would not furnish any further cause of action
to the petitioners to avail of that remedy. On their, own inaction, the
petitioners have committed default and they have to face the consequences.
special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.