{1} WP-1097-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1097 OF 2026 1. The State of Maharashtra Through: The Chief Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. Name- Rajesh Kumar Mob. No. 9833246545 E-mail Id. psec.revenue@maharashtra.gov.in 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Region, Nashik, Dist. Nashik. Name- Praveen Nilkanthrao Gedam Mob. No. 9423335135 E-mail Id- divcomest@gmail.com 3. The District Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar, Name- Pankaj Ashiya Mob. No. 9423335135 E-mail Id.- Collector.Ahmednagar@maharashtra.gov.in ...PETITIONERS [Ori. Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 in O.A.] VERSUS 1. Dhiraj s/o Ashok Salve Age: 40 years, Occu. Service, (Assistant Revenue Officer at Tahsil Office Newasa) R/o. C/o: Tahsil Office Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Kiran s/o Kadubal Chavan, Age: 44 years, Occu. Service (Assistant Revenue Officer at Tashil Office Jamkhed) R/o. C/o. Tahsil Office, Jamkhed Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS [Orig. Applicants in O.A.] 2026:BHC-AUG:41591-DB {2} WP-1097-2026 Mr. S.R. Wakle, AGP for Petitioner-State Mr. Rahul Awasarmal, Advocate for Respondents ....... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 27th JULY, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 09th SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER : [Per Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.] 1. By this petition, Petitioner-State challenges the judgment and order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No. 189 of 2018. 2. Facts in nutshell can be stated thus; Respondents joined the service as Clerk in the Revenue Department on 22.04.2010 and 22.06.2010 respectively. On 19.01.2018, Respondent No. 3 published provisional seniority list of employees who have passed the Sub Service Departmental Examination (‘SSD’ for short) and Revenue Qualifying Examination Test (‘RQTE’ for short) and those who have exempted from passing S.S.D. and RQTE examination. The names of Respondents are at serial no. 72 and 73 respectively. Both the Respondents have cleared their SSD examination on 20.01.2013 in 4th attempt and the said date i.e. 20.01.2013 is considered for their placement in the seniority list. The {3} WP-1097-2026 other candidates, those who had passed the SSD examination, their date of joining were considered for placement in the seniority list. 3. Respondents, therefore, approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 189 of 2018 and contended that their date of joining be considered for their placement in the seniority list. While taking objection to the provisional seniority list, Respondents placed reliance on Government Resolution dated 24.08.1976, they also contended that they have cleared SSD examination in 4th attempt within four years. Without considering the objections of the Respondents, final seniority list was published on 15.02.2018 wherein Respondents were placed at serial no. 72 and 73 respectively. 4. The Tribunal allowed the application by taking into consideration the Government Resolution dated 24.08.1976 as well as Government Resolution dated 21.03.1979 issued by General Administration Department, Government Resolution dated 16.11.2006 and the decision rendered by the Principal Seat of the Tribunal in Original Applications Nos. 480 of 2021 and 481 of 2021, by which it was held that Government Resolution dated 24.08.1976 is applicable to the SSD examination and the candidates belong to Backward Class should be given one more chance and one more year to pass the departmental examination. {4} WP-1097-2026 5. Heard learned AGP for State and learned Advocate for Respondents at length. Perused the record. 6. Indisputably, the Respondents have cleared SSD examination on 20.01.2013 in 4th attempt, which is permissible in terms of Government Resolution dated 24.08.1976. The relevant provision of the said Government Resolution reads thus; “The Government has now decided that in the Departmental examination rules for promotion to the higher posts and Non- Gazetted, in all the Government offices, a provision should be made therein to the effect that the candidates from (i) Scheduled Castes, (ii) Scheduled Tribes and (iii) Denotified Tribes and Nomadic Tribes, should be given one more chance and one more year to pass the Departmental examinations, than is permissible under the rules to other candidates.” 7. The Government Resolution dated 21.03.1979 issued by General Administration Department also states that one more chance and a period of one more year should be given to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Nomadic Tribes to pass the departmental examination. Government Resolution dated 16.11.2006 also reiterates that one more chance and one more year should be {5} WP-1097-2026 given to the candidates from Backward Class (SC/ST/NT/VJNT/SBC) to pass the departmental examination, than is permissible under the rules to other candidates. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7735 of 2013 (Shyam Marotirao Kavle v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others) had an occasion to consider the similar issue. By relying on Sub Rule 3-b of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra State Zilla Parishad District Services Post Recruitment Examination Rules, 1985, it is held: “9. Rule 4 (3-b) was introduced by way of an amendment with effect from 24.05.1999. Rule 4 (3-b) gives powers to the Chief Executive Officer in exceptional circumstances for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing to grant additional opportunity not more than two chances or more than two years to Parishad employee for passing the examination. It is not disputed by either of the parties that the Chief Executive Officer had granted additional chance to the petitioner and the petitioner has passed the departmental examination in four chances. It appears that the Chief Executive Officer has granted opportunity to the petitioner to pass the departmental examination relying on the Resolution dated 24.08.1976 and/or Government Resolution dated 16.11.2006. Even if, the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader is accepted that the said Government Resolution would not apply to the petitioner and it would not inure to the benefit of the petitioner, however, Rule 4 (3-b) empowers the Chief Executive Officer to give additional chance not more than two chances to pass the departmental examination. The petitioner in one additional chance has passed the departmental examination and thereafter, is considered for selection. At the time, the petitioner was promoted on recommendation of the {6} WP-1097-2026 Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner had already passed the required examination in four chances. Courtesy, the Chief Executive Officer who had given one additional chance to the petitioner. The same was within his powers, though, the Chief Executive Officer may have relied on erroneous Resolution.” 9. In the backdrop of above, we are of the view that the Tribunal is justified in allowing the Original Application filed by the Respondents by giving cogent reasons. Reliance by the Tribunal on Government Resolution dated 24.08.1976 is well placed. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal. No jurisdictional error or error of law is committed by the Tribunal while allowing the Original Application. 10. In the light of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the challenge raised by the Petitioner. Writ Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Bhagyawant Punde