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.