Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Anant Sawant, joined MCGM as a Drainage Assistant in 1983 and was made permanent in 2002. In 2009, he sought and obtained permission to complete a diploma in Engineering from Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management (EIILM), Sikkim, which was approved by the University Grants Commission (UGC). He completed the course in August 2012. Meanwhile, MCGM issued circulars in 2011 and 2013 for appointment of Junior Engineers, initially requiring diploma from UGC or AICTE approved institutions, but later changing the criteria to require diploma from AICTE or Director of Technical Education (DTE) approved institutions only. In April 2016, MCGM decided to promote the petitioner and 15 others, but ultimately promoted only 15, excluding the petitioner. By a communication dated 12 May 2016, MCGM informed the petitioner that the reason for non-promotion was lack of vacancy. The petitioner challenged this decision by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court noted that the petitioner was permitted to pursue the diploma from a UGC-approved institution and that the change in criteria cannot be applied retrospectively to him. The court also found that the reason of lack of vacancy was discriminatory as 15 others were promoted. The court directed MCGM to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer if vacancies exist, or to create a supernumerary post if necessary, within four weeks. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Eligibility Criteria - Diploma Recognition - The petitioner, a Drainage Assistant, completed a diploma from a UGC-approved institution (EIILM) with MCGM's permission. MCGM later changed criteria for Junior Engineer posts to require diploma from AICTE or DTE approved institutions. The court held that since the petitioner was permitted to pursue the course and the institution was UGC-approved, he should be considered eligible, and the change in criteria cannot be applied retrospectively to him. (Paras 1-5) B) Service Law - Promotion - Vacancy - Legitimate Expectation - MCGM denied promotion citing lack of vacancy, but promoted 15 others from the same list. The court found this discriminatory and directed MCGM to consider the petitioner for promotion if vacancies exist or create a supernumerary post. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who completed a diploma from a UGC-approved institution, is eligible for promotion to Junior Engineer when the MCGM's circular required diploma from AICTE or DTE approved institutions, and whether the MCGM's decision to deny promotion due to lack of vacancy was valid.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and directed MCGM to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer if vacancies exist, or to create a supernumerary post if necessary, within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Promotion
- Eligibility Criteria
- Diploma Recognition
- UGC vs AICTE/DTE Approval
- Policy Change
- Legitimate Expectation
