11 July 2024 Employee Related >> Corporate Law  

In a significant development in the matter of Dr. Deelip Mhaisekar Versus Dr. Ajay Sahebrao Chandanwale & Another, the Bombay High Court has quashed a decision by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) regarding the appointment of an additional charge holder for the post of Director, Medical Education and Research (DMER).

The case involved a dispute between two government employees over the entitlement to hold the additional charge of the DMER post. While one employee (Petitioner) had been holding the position for over two years, the other (1st Respondent) was senior in service. The 1st Respondent challenged the Petitioner's appointment before the MAT, which ruled in his favour.

However, the High Court found several issues with the Tribunal's decision. Firstly, the Court observed that the Tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction by examining the validity of an earlier order regarding the Petitioner's appointment, which was not challenged by the 1st Respondent. Secondly, the Court pointed out that both employees were appointed to the additional charge without following the prescribed procedure.

Considering these factors, the High Court allowed the Petitioner to continue in the post until his retirement, subject to departmental satisfaction. The Court also directed the Department to fill the post substantively within three months.

This judgment underscores the importance of following due procedure in government appointments and the limitations of administrative tribunals in reviewing decisions beyond the scope of the challenge before them.