Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 2.11.2000, which granted deemed dates of promotion to respondent no.1, Prabhakar Shivaji Wankhede, a Police Naik belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. The Tribunal had directed that respondent no.1 be deemed promoted as Police Head Constable w.e.f. 24.3.1989 and as Assistant Police Sub Inspector w.e.f. 1.10.1995, the dates on which his juniors, Ganesh Dalal and Shriram Jivtode (both Scheduled Tribe), were promoted. The State argued that a Scheduled Caste employee cannot be granted a deemed date of promotion from the date of promotion of Scheduled Tribe employees, as they belong to different reserved categories. The High Court accepted this contention, holding that the Tribunal's order was erroneous to that extent. However, the court noted that respondent no.1 had also alleged supersession by juniors belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, but the necessary facts regarding their promotion dates and roster points were not placed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, directing it to determine the correct deemed date of promotion for respondent no.1 based on the promotion of Scheduled Caste juniors, after affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Deemed Date - Scheduled Caste employee cannot be granted deemed date of promotion from the date of promotion of Scheduled Tribe employees, as they belong to different reserved categories. (Paras 2-3)
B) Service Law - Supersession - Remand - Where necessary facts regarding supersession by juniors of the same category were not before the Tribunal, the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred in granting deemed date of promotion to a Scheduled Caste employee from the dates on which Scheduled Tribe employees were promoted, and whether the matter should be remanded for consideration of supersession by Scheduled Caste juniors.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. It set aside the Tribunal's order to the extent it granted deemed date of promotion from the dates of promotion of Scheduled Tribe employees. The matter was remanded to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for fresh consideration, directing it to determine the correct deemed date of promotion for respondent no.1 based on the promotion of Scheduled Caste juniors, after affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.
Law Points
- Deemed date of promotion
- Supersession in promotion
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories
- Roster points
- Remand for fresh consideration
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 414
Writ Petition No.678 of 2001
S.A. Bobde, Smt. Vasanti A. Naik
Mrs. B. H. Dangre (Additional Government Pleader for petitioners), Shri V. M. Moon (Advocate for respondent no.1)
State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Bombay-32 and The Commissioner of Police Civil Lines, Nagpur
Prabhakar Shivaji Wankhede, Ganesh Dalal, Shriram Jivtode
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal granting deemed dates of promotion to a Scheduled Caste police constable.
Remedy Sought
The State of Maharashtra sought to set aside the Tribunal's order granting deemed promotion dates to respondent no.1.
Filing Reason
The State contended that the Tribunal erroneously granted deemed promotion dates from the dates on which Scheduled Tribe employees were promoted, which was impermissible as respondent no.1 belonged to the Scheduled Caste category.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by order dated 2.11.2000 granted deemed date of promotion to respondent no.1 as Police Head Constable w.e.f. 24.3.1989 and as Assistant Police Sub Inspector w.e.f. 1.10.1995.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in granting deemed date of promotion to a Scheduled Caste employee from the dates of promotion of Scheduled Tribe employees.
Whether the matter should be remanded for consideration of supersession by Scheduled Caste juniors.
Submissions/Arguments
State (Petitioner): The Tribunal's order is erroneous because respondent no.1, being a Scheduled Caste candidate, could not be granted deemed promotion from the dates on which Scheduled Tribe employees were promoted.
Respondent no.1: He was superseded by juniors belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, and the Tribunal could have granted deemed date from the dates of promotion of those juniors.
Ratio Decidendi
A Scheduled Caste employee cannot be granted a deemed date of promotion from the date of promotion of Scheduled Tribe employees, as they belong to different reserved categories. However, if the employee was superseded by juniors of the same category, the matter should be remanded for determination of the correct deemed date.
Judgment Excerpts
the respondent no.1 who belongs Scheduled Caste Category has in fact been superseded in promotion to the post of Head Constable and Assistant Police Sub Inspector, by other persons who were junior to whom and whose names are at serial no.6, 12, 23, 28, 29, 36, 39, 40 and 41 in the seniority list.
the Tribunal’s order is erroneous only to the extent it grants deemed date of promotion to the respondent no.1, with effect from the date the two persons who belonged to Scheduled Tribe category were granted promotion as Head Constable and Assistant Police Sub Inspector.
Since the necessary facts from which supersession of the respondent no.1 by person belonging to the Scheduled Caste could have been inferred before the Tribunal, were not before the Tribunal, it will be in the interest of justice to remand the matter.
Procedural History
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal passed an order on 2.11.2000 granting deemed dates of promotion to respondent no.1. The State of Maharashtra challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.678 of 2001 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 4.1.2010.
