Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
LOKNARAYAN PANDE & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/10/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This petition has been filed against the order of the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal made on 10.5.1996 in OA
No.492/94 and batch.
The 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.
Shri Sanghi, 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
be denied of the right to appear for viva voce as directed
by the Division Bench.
We 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.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.