This writ petition under Article 226 challenges the judgment by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) dated 07/05/2024, which set aside an order that had restored the additional charge of the Director, Directorate of Medical Education and Research (DMER), to the petitioner after his medical leave. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the 1st respondent, who was senior to the petitioner and had been given additional charge during the petitioner's leave. The petitioner contends that the Tribunal erred by considering the order dated 05/07/2021, which was not challenged by the 1st respondent, and failing to note that neither the order dated 13/07/2023 nor 21/09/2023 followed the prescribed procedure. The High Court sets aside the Tribunal's order, allowing the petitioner to hold additional charge until his superannuation on 31/07/2024.

1. Introduction and Challenge

• Rule made returnable forthwith, parties heard.
• Challenge under Article 226 against MAT judgment dated 07/05/2024 in Original Application No.1226 of 2023.

2. Background Facts

• Post of Director-DMER vacant.
• Recruitment Rules under reconsideration.
• Petitioner given additional charge on 05/07/2021.
• Petitioner on medical leave from 14/07/2023; 1st respondent given additional charge on 13/07/2023.
• Upon petitioner's return on 20/09/2023, additional charge restored to him on 21/09/2023.
• 1st respondent challenged the 21/09/2023 order at the Tribunal.

3. Tribunal's Findings

• Order dated 05/07/2021 not in accordance with Circular dated 05/09/2018.
• 1st respondent senior to the petitioner.
• Tribunal set aside 21/09/2023 order and directed adherence to Circular dated 05/09/2018.

4. Petitioner's Arguments

• Petitioner given additional charge since 05/07/2021, uncontested by 1st respondent.
• Tribunal erred in examining the unchallenged 05/07/2021 order.
• Additional charge not amounting to promotion or legal right.
• Interim orders allowed petitioner to hold charge during proceedings.

5. 1st Respondent's Arguments

• Seniority and disability of 1st respondent.
• State's lack of justification in the 21/09/2023 order.
• Need to follow Circular dated 05/09/2018.

6. State's Position

• Administrative exigencies justified additional charge to petitioner on 21/09/2023.

7. Court's Analysis and Findings

• Additional charge for administrative exigencies, not legal right or promotion.
• No challenge to the 05/07/2021 order for two years, resulting in estoppel.
• Failure to follow Circular dated 05/09/2018 in both 13/07/2023 and 21/09/2023 orders.
• Tribunal's error in addressing unchallenged order and lack of pleadings on victimization.

8. Conclusion

• Tribunal unjustified in reviewing 05/07/2021 order.
• Both orders (13/07/2023 and 21/09/2023) did not follow Circular.
• Setting aside Tribunal's order.

9. Final Directions

• Petitioner to hold additional charge until superannuation on 31/07/2024 or until deemed suitable.
• Department to fill Director-DMER post substantively within three months.
• Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.