Appointment by Deputation must be entertained by Division Bench member, not by Single bench: Bombay HC reverses MAT’s Decision to revoke Deputation of Sales Tax Officer

In a recent ruling, a Division Bench of Bombay High Court overturned the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) revoking the deputation of the sales tax officer on grounds of inherent lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent no.1 asserted that the Petitioner’s parent department is the Sales Tax agency and that he does not belong to the Municipal Administrative Service. On August 11, 2020, he was appointed as the Municipal Corporation’s Deputy Commissioner on deputation. Additionally, the petitioner was added to the cadre of Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax Department Class-1 (Selection grade) by an order dated September 22, 2022.

The Respondent No.1 was issued a formal order for appointment as Additional Commissioner on 13 September 2022 by exercising powers under Section 39A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act.

However the respondent was prohibited from joining PCMC suddenly by a ruling dated September 22, 2022. Her appointment was cancelled, and the petitioner was chosen without any explanation. In response, the Respondent No. 1 submitted the initial application to the Tribunal, asking, among other things, for the tribunal to vacate the ruling cancelling the Respondent No. 1’s appointment and appoint the petitioner to the vacant position.

The said matter was heard by a Single Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Petitioner raised an objection on 30 November 2022 that the learned member had no jurisdiction to decide the original application filed by the Respondent No.1 as the same should have been assigned to the Division Bench of the Tribunal because of its subject.

The counsel of the petitioner submitted that fundamentally the jurisdiction of the Member has to be exercised by the Division Bench. Only as an exception, such jurisdiction is exercisable by the Single Member.

Justice Gauri Godse and Justice R. D. Dhanuka bench was reluctant to accept the respondent side’s arguments because doing so would constitute a complete violation of the rules of jurisdiction, a violation of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, and a violation of the circular issued by the Chairman in the exercise of his or her authority to order that a particular dispute be decided by the Single Member or by the Division Bench.

The tribunal observed that a single member of the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in respect of ‘appointment by deputation and order of cancellation’. Thus set aside the impugned order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal held without jurisdiction.  

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates