Mr.John Shabaji Kharat vs State of Maharashtra and ors

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 16th April 2015, made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT)

disposing of Original Application No.823 of 2011 instituted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner by instituting OA No.823 of 2011 had

questioned the selection of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to the posts of State Information Commissioner. The Petitioner by amending the OA alsoÂ

sought for a declaration of his own entitlement to the post of State Information Commissioner.

The State of Maharashtra had also instituted Writ Petition No.11623 of 2015 challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 16th

April 2015, made by the MAT. The same was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 16th April 2016. The Petitioner,

it appears, had instituted a Review Petition in Writ Petition No.11623 of 2015, which had since being disposed of by order dated 13th

November 2017.

Mr.Warunjikar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the MAT in the impugned judgment and order has in fact recorded a

finding that the procedure adopted to select Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to the posts of State Information Commissioner, was not legal and

proper. Mr.Warunjikar submits that after record of such a categorical finding, the MAT was not at all justified in refusing to annul the

appointments of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the spacious plea that their tenure was to shortly conclude. Mr.Warunjikar submits that since there

were gross illegalities in the selection procedure, the MAT, was required to not only set aside the appointments of Respondent Nos.2 to 4

but further, to grant the Petitioner the relief claimed in the original application. Mr.Warunjikar submits that the MAT has also erred

seriously in not granting any relief to the Petitioner, in so far as the Petitioner's claim for appointment to the post of State Information

Commissioner was concerned.

The Petitioner as well as Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had applied for selection to the posts of State Information Commissioner, which were,

at the relevant time, tenure posts having tenure of 5 years. The Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were selected and appointed as State InformationÂ

Commissioners on 6th October 2010 and there is no dispute that their tenure has since concluded on or about 5th October 2015.

The MAT, in the impugned judgment and order has no doubt commented upon the entire selection process for appointments to the posts ofÂ

State Information Commissioner. The MAT has held that there were no proper rules and even the selection process 'was not entirely

free from being blameÂ​worthy'. Since the Petitioner endorses these findings, it is obvious that the Petitioner was not entitled to any

appointment as a State Information Commissioner on the basis of the very same selection process. Further, considering that Petitioner's

application was for appointment to a 5 years tenure post for the period between 2010 and 2015, there is no question of grant of any

such relief, at this stage.

The MAT, after recording that the selection procedure was not entirely free from being blameÂ​worthy chose not to set

aside the appointments of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 mainly on the ground that the tenure of the said Respondents was to shortly conclude. The

impugned judgment and order was made in April and the tenure of the said Respondents was to conclude in October. Although, we do

not approve of such reasoning, the fact remains that the tenure of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has concluded sometime in October 2015

itself. Therefore, the Petitioner can seek no further reliefs on this count as well.

For the aforesaid reasons, we see no good ground to entertain the present Petition. This Petition is therefore rejected.

There shall however be no order as to costs.