1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S).  16122-16130 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21046-21054 OF 2017]

SUDHAKAR BABURAO NANGNURE ETC.               Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

NORESHWAR RAGHUNATHRAO SHENDE & ORS. ETC.    Respondent(s) WITH

MA NO. 673 OF 2017 IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 7857-7859 OF 2017

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. Civil Appeal Nos. 16122-16130 of 2017 [@ SLP (C) Nos. 21046-21054 OF 2017]

1. Leave granted.      2. The appellants approached this Court, aggrieved by a common interim order in three writ petitions, viz.,  Writ Petition Nos. 8859 of 2016, 8860 of 2016 and 9291 of 2016.  The interim order dated 02.09.2016 reads as follows :-

1. We  have  heard  learned  Senior Counsel Mr. Dada and Mr. Jahagirdar, appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 8860 and 8859 of 2016 respectively,  Mr.  Anturkar  for respondent  no.1  and  the  learned  AGP for the State. During the course of

2

hearing  of  these  petitions  at admission  stage,  learned  Senior Counsel  Mr.  Dada  appearing  for  the petitioner  placed  reliance  on  the following judgments :- (a) P. Chitharanja Menon and ors. vs.  A. Balakrishnan and ors. [AIR 1977 SC  1720]. (b) Roshan Lal and Ors. vs.  International Airport Authority of  India and ors. [AIR 1981 SC 597]. (c) Amarjeet Singh and ors. vs. Devi  Ratan and ors. [(2010)1 SCC 417]. 2. Learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing for  the  petitioner  submits  that without  challenging  the  promotion  of the  petitioner,  the  respondent  no.1 challenged  the  seniority  list  at  a belated stage. The petitioner is now occupying the post of Director, Town Planning.  There  was  delay  in  filing Original  Application,  which  was condoned  arbitrarily.  A  separate petition is filed against the order of condonation  of  delay  i.e.  Writ Petition No. 8859 of 2016. 3.  Learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing for the respondent no.1 submits that the  petitioner  had  no  right  to  get promotion  and,  therefore,  the promotion  granted  to  the  petitioner was  void  ab  initio.  The  respondent no.1 rightly challenged the seniority list.  In  the  facts,  it  was  not obligatory  on  the  part  of  the respondent  no.1  to  challenge  the promotion  of  the  petitioner.  Learned counsel  for  respondent  no.1  placed reliance on the following judgments :- (a) P. V. George and ors. vs. State of Kerala and ors. [(2007)3 SCC 557]. (b)  S.  Panneer  Selvam  and  ors.  vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.[(2015) 10 SCC 292]. 4. Learned  AGP  appearing  for  the State  submitted  that  State  has  also challenged  the  order  passed  by  the Tribunal  as  the  said  order  would create several problems, difficulties

3

in the State administration and would affect the services of employees. 5.  Learned  Senior  Counsel  Mr. Jahagirdar, raised issues relating to order of condonation of delay passed by the Tribunal. 6.  Issue  notice  to  the  respondents, returnable after six weeks. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive notice. 8. Endevour would be made to decide the matters finally at the admission stage.  Parties  may  file  affidavit, rejoinder prior to the next date of hearing. 9. In the meanwhile, we direct that the parties shall maintain status quo as  on  today  in  respect  of  the promotional  post  occupied  by  the petitioner  -  Noreshwar  Raghunathrao Shende.

3. The  Special  Leave  Petitions  against  the  said interim order were disposed of by this Court by order dated 06.03.2017, which reads as follows :-

“Delay condoned. The  petitioner  is  before  this

Court, aggrieved by the interim order dated 2.9.2016.  The issue pertains to the  appointment  to  the  post  of Director  of  Town  Planning, Maharashtra.

It  is  submitted  that  the petitioner has only short period left in service.  Be that as it may, since the High Court has passed the interim order to maintain status quo, we do not think it appropriate to pass any order,  since  the  writ  petitions  are

4

pending before the High Court.

Therefore, we dispose of these special leave petitions with a request to the High Court to dispose of all the three writ  petitions  i.e.  W.P.  Nos.8859, 8860  and  9291  of  2016  expeditiously and in any case within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order by the petitioner before the High Court. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

4. The  respondents  filed  Review  Petitions  against the  above  order  dated  06.03.2017,  which  were dismissed by order dated 19.04.2017.  The order reads as follows :-

“We have perused the Review Petitions and  record  of  the  Special  Leave Petitions and are convinced that the order,  of  which  review  has  been sought, does not suffer from any error apparent  warranting  its reconsideration.   

The  Review  Petitions  are, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending  Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.   

5. Even thereafter, according to the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, for one reason

5

or  the  other,  the  matters  were  not  being  finally heard.  We do not propose to express any opinion as to  why the  matters were  not finally  heard, except taking note of the fact, at the risk of redundancy, that the interim order has been passed on 02.09.2016 and  also  taking  note  of  the  serious  contentions raised by the parties, this Court had requested the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions within two months.

6. It  is  the  submission  of  the  learned  senior counsel  that  on  account  of  the  conduct  of  the respondents, the cases are being adjourned before the High Court, apparently to delay the disposal of the cases.  The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that the respondents were always ready for final hearing and there was nothing on their behalf towards the delay.   

7. Be  that  as  it  may,  having  regard  to  the seriousness of the matter and having regard to the fact that the writ petitions are still pending before the High Court, we are of the view that the matters need to be disposed of.  As agreed by the learned senior counsel appearing on both sides, the parties will appear before the High Court on 31.10.2017, on which date, the writ petitions will be posted as the

6

first item in the High Court.

8. We record the submission made by both the parties that they will argue the matter before the High Court on that date and the writ petitions will be finally heard and disposed of, in any case, within 10 days.

9. With the above observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of.

10. The parties are free to mention before this Court on  14.11.2017, in  case the  writ petitions  are not disposed of by the High Court, as directed above. MA NO. 673 OF 2017 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 7857-7859 OF 2017

In  view  of  the  order  passed  above,  nothing survives in this misc. application.  The application is, accordingly, dismissed.     

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; October 09, 2017.

7

ITEM NO.52 + 53            COURT NO.4               SECTION III                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 21046-21054 OF 2017 SUDHAKAR BABURAO NANGNURE ETC.                     Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS NORESHWAR RAGHUNATHRAO SHENDE & ORS. ETC.          Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.74639/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.74642/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH MA NO. 673 OF 2017 IN SLP (C) Nos. 7857-7859 OF 2017 Date : 09-10-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Appellant(s) Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.  

Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar, Adv.  Mr. Anand Landge, Adv.  Ms. Himanshi Gupta, Adv.  

                   For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.  

Mr. Makarand D. Adkar, Adv.  Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.  

                   Ms. Aparna Jha, AOR Mr. Sagar Mane, Adv.  

                        UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Leave granted.   The appeals are disposed of and MA No. 673 OF 2017 in SLP (C)

Nos.  7857-7859  OF  2017  is  dismissed  in  terms  of  the  signed non-reportable Judgment.   

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                              (RENU DIWAN)    COURT MASTER                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)