The High Court of Bombay addressed a writ petition filed by Smt. Shweta Takalgavankar challenging the promotion of a junior, Smt. Asha Bagul, to the position of Registrar at the Family Court, Aurangabad. This case interprets Rule 3(a) of the Registrar of Family Courts (Recruitment) Rules, 1995, which governs the promotion criteria as “seniority subject to fitness.”

Acts and Sections Discussed

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India - for filing the writ petition.
• Article 309 of the Constitution of India - pertaining to the rule-making power for recruitment rules.
• Registrar of Family Courts (Recruitment) Rules, 1995 - particularly Rule 3(a) that specifies “seniority subject to fitness” as the criterion for promotion to the post of Registrar.

Key Facts and Findings (Para-Wise):

1. Petition and Background
   Petitioner: Smt. Shweta contested the promotion of her junior, respondent no. 5, on grounds of seniority, invoking Article 226 for quashing the promotion order.

2. Petitioner’s Service Record
   Petitioner had a longer tenure and was previously promoted to Superintendent before respondent no. 5.

3. Promotion Committee’s Decision
   Despite petitioner's seniority, the promotion committee recommended respondent no. 5 based on an assessment of comparative service records, including past performance and merit, contrary to Rule 3(a).

4. Arguments by the Petitioner
   Citing seniority-cum-fitness, the petitioner argued that her seniority should have precedence since she met the minimum fitness requirements.

5. Arguments by Respondents
   Respondents argued that comparative assessments were necessary for selecting the most suitable candidate due to the high responsibility attached to the role of Registrar.

6. Judgment and Interpretation of Rule 3(a)
   The Court clarified that Rule 3(a) of the 1995 Rules prioritizes seniority, allowing assessment only to ensure minimum fitness, not a detailed comparative evaluation.

7. Precedents Cited
   The Court referenced Haryana State Warehousing Corporation v. Jagat Ram, emphasizing that in a “seniority-cum-merit” framework, seniority should govern once minimum fitness is established, avoiding further comparative assessment.

8. Court’s Decision
   The Court concluded that once the petitioner met the minimum fitness requirements, seniority should have dictated her promotion. The promotion of the junior, respondent no. 5, was set aside, and the Court directed the authorities to confer the due benefits to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that in promotions governed by "seniority-cum-fitness," comparative merit assessment is redundant once a candidate meets the minimum fitness criteria. Seniority is the rule unless the senior candidate is explicitly found unfit.

Conclusion:

The High Court's decision reinforces that promotional rules emphasizing seniority-cum-fitness limit the scope of comparative assessments and highlight the need for authorities to adhere to established statutory rules without discretionary adjustments.

Subjects:

Promotion Dispute, Seniority-Cum-Fitness, Judicial Service, Recruitment Rules