S.S. Shinde, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as a clerk in Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Majalgaon, by an order dated 3rd October, 1981. After completion of five years satisfactory service, he was appointed as Cashier. He was further promoted as Statistician on 1st October, 1994 and worked on the said post satisfactorily. On 12th January, 2005, he was given additional charge of Secretary. Respondent no.4 passed unanimous resolution in its administrative meeting on 24th February, 2005 and decided to appoint him as Secretary. Accordingly, the appointment order was issued on 6th September, 2005. Considering his experience, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Parli-Vaijanath passed resolution on 13th May, 2015 to appoint him as Additional Secretary for six months. It is the case of the petitioner that under Service Rules, one Secretary can act as an additional Secretary in another Agricultural Produce Market Committee and accordingly he worked at both the places i.e. at Majalgaon and Parali-Vaijanath. However, the Director of Marketing directed him to join at Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Majalgaon only. On 2nd November, 2015, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Majalgaon passed resolution and forwarded the same to the District Deputy Registrar for approval to his appointment as Secretary. However, the said authority rejected the proposal. Hence this Petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was already promoted as Secretary in the year 2005 and to that effect on 6th September, 2005, the approval was granted by the District Deputy Registrar, Beed vide approval letter at Exhibit `J' Page 32. He further submits that respondent no.3 has not considered the contention of the petitioner that as per the requirements of the Rules prevailing at the relevant time, he was appointed as Secretary and the approval was granted in his favour. It is submitted that so far preparation of list of candidates/panel for appointment to the post of Secretary is concerned, would be contrary to the provisions of Rules 12 and 46 of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules, 1969, hence formation of panel would not come in the way of the petitioner in getting promoted as per the Rules earlier prevailing. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Petition deserves to be allowed.
4. On the other, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent/State submits that there is amendment to the provisions of Section 35(1) of the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing (Development of Regulation) Act, 1963 and it is necessary for the Market Committee to appoint the Secretary from the panel of Secretaries prepared by the State Marketing Board. It is submitted that in view of the said amendment, the proposal for approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Secretary was rejected by the Respondent Authority.
5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent/State. With their able assistance, we have perused the pleadings in the Petition, annexures thereto and reply filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Upon careful perusal of the documents placed on record, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner was appointed as Secretary on promotion in the year 2005 itself and to that effect the District Deputy Registrar has accorded approval to his appointment. It is not the case of the Respondents that pursuant to the amendment to Section 35 of the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing (Development of Regulation) Act, 1963, certain provisions are reframed or amended, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for promotion to the post of Secretary.
6. Rule 46 of the Market Committee Employees (Service) Rules reads thus:
46- HINDI
7. The true translation of the above Rule 46 is as under:
46. Promotion : The appointments of employees to be made on the posts fallen vacant in Market Committee shall, as far as possible, be made by promoting the employee in service of the Market Committee only. For this purpose, the Market Committee will prepare separate seniority list as per categories of employees i.e. Officers, Senior employees and junior employees and promotions will be given as per seniority of the employees in the respective class. However, in exceptional cases, the Market Committee can promote employee from any class to any post by giving reasons. The pay of such promoted employee shall be fixed on the next stage in the new pay-scale and one increment will be given. The employee who has been awarded penalties as per Rule 102 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967, though happens to be senior, shall be placed at the end of the seniority list.
8. It is not in dispute that by invoking the said provision, the petitioner was promoted as Secretary and to that effect, at the relevant time, the District Deputy Registrar has granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Secretary. It is true that those Rules are issued by the Executive Instructions, but nevertheless approved by the State Government at the concerned Department level. In that view of the matter, the petitioner's case ought to have been considered, keeping in view the aforementioned provisions from the said Rules.
9. In the result, the Petition partly succeeds. The impugned order dated 22nd December, 2015 passed by the Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the issue of granting ex post facto sanction/approval to the promotional post of Secretary held by the petitioner, keeping in view the aforementioned Rules and the fact that the petitioner's case is on the basis of the length of service rendered by him, however, without raising the same grounds, as raised in the impugned order dated 22nd December, 2015, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within eight weeks from today and communicate the said decision to the petitioner as well as to the Respondent Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Majalgaon. Till such decision is taken, the petitioner's service status shall remain unaffected.
10. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.