Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Rahul Pramod Yadav, was appointed as a Clerk in the Bombay High Court on 18th July 2013. He completed his probation on 6th October 2015 and passed the Lower Standard Departmental Examination in 2015. In 2018, he claimed eligibility for promotion to Assistant Section Officer under Rule 26 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000, based on five years of experience, a degree, and passing the Lower Standard Examination. However, Rule 26 requires passing the Higher Standard Departmental Examination for promotion to the post of Assistant Section Officer. The Petitioner had not passed this examination. In February 2022, the Respondents issued a circular calling candidates for viva-voce for the post of Assistant Section Officer. The Petitioner participated in the viva-voce on 5th February 2022 but was not selected. He filed a writ petition challenging the promotion process as illegal and unconstitutional, seeking consideration for promotion and a deemed date of 10th February 2022 with arrears. The Court examined the Service Rules and found that the Petitioner did not meet the mandatory eligibility criteria of passing the Higher Standard Departmental Examination. The Court held that the Petitioner's participation in the viva-voce did not create any right to promotion, and the selection process was valid. The petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Eligibility Criteria - Rule 26 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000 - The Petitioner, a Clerk, sought promotion to Assistant Section Officer but had not passed the Higher Standard Departmental Examination. The Court held that passing the Higher Standard Departmental Examination is a mandatory eligibility condition for promotion under Rule 26, and the Petitioner's failure to do so disentitles him from consideration. (Paras 7-10)
B) Service Law - Viva-voce - Selection Process - Circular dated 1st February 2022 - The Petitioner participated in the viva-voce but was not selected. The Court found that the selection process was valid and the Petitioner's claim that he was under the impression that the selection was as per Rule 26 was not sufficient to override the clear eligibility requirements. (Paras 5-6)
C) Service Law - Deemed Date - Arrears - The Petitioner sought a deemed date of 10th February 2022 with arrears. The Court rejected this claim as the Petitioner was not eligible for promotion and no right to promotion existed. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Section Officer and to be granted a deemed date of promotion with arrears, despite not having passed the Higher Standard Departmental Examination as required under Rule 26 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Petitioner was not eligible for promotion as he had not passed the Higher Standard Departmental Examination as required under Rule 26 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Promotion eligibility
- Departmental Examination
- Service Rules interpretation
- Viva-voce selection process
- Deemed date of promotion
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 171
WRIT PETITION NO.2850 OF 2023
SUNIL B. SHUKRE, FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA
Mr. Sandeep Dere for the Petitioner, Mr. Rahul Nerelkar for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
The Registrar (General), High Court of Bombay & The Registrar Personnel, High Court of Bombay
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the promotion process for the post of Assistant Section Officer.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner sought a declaration that the promotion process was illegal and unconstitutional, and a direction to consider him for promotion to the post of Assistant Section Officer with a deemed date of 10th February 2022 and all consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner was not selected for promotion to Assistant Section Officer despite participating in the viva-voce, and he claimed that the selection process was not conducted as per the Service Rules.
Issues
Whether the Petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Section Officer under Rule 26 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000?
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a deemed date of promotion and arrears?
Submissions/Arguments
The Petitioner argued that he was eligible for promotion as he had completed five years of service, held a degree, and passed the Lower Standard Departmental Examination. He contended that the circular for viva-voce did not mention eligibility criteria and he participated under the impression that selection was as per Rule 26.
The Respondents argued that the Petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria under Rule 26 as he had not passed the Higher Standard Departmental Examination, which is mandatory for promotion to Assistant Section Officer. They submitted that the selection process was valid and the Petitioner was not selected on merit.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi is that for promotion to the post of Assistant Section Officer under Rule 26 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000, passing the Higher Standard Departmental Examination is a mandatory eligibility condition. The Petitioner's failure to pass this examination disentitles him from consideration for promotion, and participation in the viva-voce does not create any right to promotion.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks an order that the process of promotion initiated by the Respondents is illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under the Constitution of India.
The Petitioner completed his probation period on 6th October, 2015.
It is the case of the Petitioner in the Petition that, in 2018, he became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Section Officer since, as per Rule 26 of the Service Rules, he was having experience for more than 5 years, was holding a degree and had successfully passed a Lower Standard Departmental Examination.
Respondent No.2 published a Circular dated 1st February, 2022 whereby Respondent No.2 call twenty candidates for viva-voce for the post of Assistant Section Officer.
Thereafter, Respondent No.2 published a Notice dated 10th February, 2022 whereby Respondent No.2 published a list of selected candidates for the post of Assistant Section Officer.
Procedural History
The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2850 of 2023 before the Bombay High Court challenging the promotion process. The petition was reserved on 5th September 2023 and pronounced on 5th October 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000: Rule 26
