Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through its Public Health Department, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 15/4/2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Transfer Application No.3872/1991. The respondent no.1, Dr. Mrs. Pratibha Gulhane, was appointed as Medical Officer-II in 1968, promoted to Medical Officer Class-I in 1974, and further promoted to Deputy Director of Health Services in 1982. In the seniority list published on 22/6/1989, she was shown senior to respondent no.2, Dr. B.M. Dama, and one Dr. V.D. Sontakke was senior to both. The next promotional post was Joint Director of Health Services. By order dated 23/1/1990, the petitioners promoted Dr. Sontakke and Dr. Dama as Joint Directors, superseding the respondent no.1. Aggrieved, she filed Writ Petition No.214/1990, which was transferred to the Tribunal as Transfer Application No.3872/1991. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the petitioners to promote the respondent no.1 to the post of Joint Director w.e.f. 23/1/1990 with all consequential benefits. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that the respondent no.1 was not promoted due to adverse remarks in her Annual Confidential Report for 1987-88. The High Court noted that the adverse remarks were not communicated to the respondent no.1, and she was not given an opportunity to challenge them. The court held that the Tribunal's order was based on a finding of fact that the adverse remarks were not communicated, and there was no error of law apparent on the face of the record. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's direction to promote the respondent no.1 from the deemed date with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Supersession - Adverse Remarks - Natural Justice - The respondent, a Medical Officer, was superseded for promotion to Joint Director based on adverse remarks in her ACR for 1987-88. The Tribunal directed her promotion with consequential benefits. The High Court held that the adverse remarks were not communicated to her, and she was not given an opportunity to challenge them, violating principles of natural justice. The court upheld the Tribunal's order, finding no error in the direction to promote her from the deemed date. (Paras 1-6) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 and 227 - Scope of Judicial Review - The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, can interfere with an order of the Tribunal only if it is perverse or suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. In this case, the Tribunal's order was based on a finding of fact that the adverse remarks were not communicated, and the High Court found no reason to interfere. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the promotion of a senior medical officer can be denied on the basis of adverse remarks recorded in her Annual Confidential Report without affording her an opportunity to challenge those remarks.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 15/4/2010. The court directed the petitioners to promote the respondent no.1 to the post of Joint Director of Health Services w.e.f. 23/1/1990 with all consequential benefits as per her entitlement.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- opportunity of hearing
- adverse remarks
- promotion
- supersession
- service law
- Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
- Article 226
- Article 227
