Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, employees of Pune Municipal Corporation working as Assistant City Engineers (Electrical), challenged the appointment of respondent no.3 as Deputy City Engineer (Electrical) made in October 1999. The post had fallen vacant in March 1996 upon the retirement of Shri A.V. Harkare. The petitioners contended that the appointment violated Rule 7 and Rule 10 of Chapter 14 of the Pune Municipal Corporation Service Rules, which mandate that the post be filled by promotion from amongst existing employees. Respondent no.3 was appointed by direct recruitment without considering the petitioners, who were qualified and eligible. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner no.2 was promoted to the same post in September 2001, so the petition was pressed only for petitioner no.1. The court found that the appointment of respondent no.3 was in blatant violation of the recruitment rules, as the post was required to be filled by promotion. The court set aside the appointment and directed the Corporation to consider petitioner no.1 for promotion in accordance with the rules, with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - Promotion vs Direct Recruitment - Rule 7 and Rule 10 of Chapter 14 of Pune Municipal Corporation Service Rules - The post of Deputy City Engineer (Electrical) was required to be filled by promotion from amongst existing employees, but respondent no.3 was appointed by direct recruitment without considering eligible internal candidates like the petitioners - Held that the appointment was illegal and set aside, with direction to consider petitioner no.1 for promotion (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of respondent no.3 as Deputy City Engineer (Electrical) was in violation of Rule 7 and Rule 10 of Chapter 14 of the Pune Municipal Corporation Service Rules, and whether the petitioners were entitled to be considered for the post.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appointment of respondent no.3 as Deputy City Engineer (Electrical), and directed respondent nos.1 and 2 to consider petitioner no.1 for promotion to the said post in accordance with the rules, with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Recruitment rules must be strictly followed
- appointment by direct recruitment when post is to be filled by promotion is illegal
- rule of reservation applies to promotions
- court can direct consideration of eligible candidates
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 222
Writ Petition No.161 of 2000
V.G. Palshikar, D.B. Bhosale
S.N. Chandrachud for petitioners, R.S. Khadapkar for R.G. Ketkar for respondents
Arun Ramchandra Shirke and Shrikrishna Sadashiv Choudhary
Pune Municipal Corporation, The Hon'ble City Engineer, and Kandul Shrinivas Gangaram
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging appointment of respondent no.3 as Deputy City Engineer (Electrical) and seeking directions to appoint petitioners.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of appointment of respondent no.3 and directions to respondent nos.1 and 2 to appoint them on the said post.
Filing Reason
Appointment of respondent no.3 was made in violation of Rule 7 and Rule 10 of Chapter 14 of Pune Municipal Corporation Service Rules, which require the post to be filled by promotion from existing employees.
Issues
Whether the appointment of respondent no.3 as Deputy City Engineer (Electrical) was in violation of Rule 7 and Rule 10 of Chapter 14 of the Pune Municipal Corporation Service Rules?
Whether the petitioners are entitled to be considered for promotion to the said post?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the appointment of respondent no.3 was in blatant violation of Rule 7 and Rule 10 of Chapter 14 of the Pune Municipal Corporation Service Rules, which provide that the post of Deputy City Engineer has to be filled up from amongst the existing work force.
Respondents contended that the appointment was made after due selection process and in accordance with rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The post of Deputy City Engineer (Electrical) was required to be filled by promotion from amongst existing employees as per Rule 7 and Rule 10 of Chapter 14 of the Pune Municipal Corporation Service Rules. The appointment of respondent no.3 by direct recruitment without considering eligible internal candidates was illegal and liable to be set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
The appointment of respondent no.3 on the said post was in blatant violation of Rule 7 and 10 of Chapter 14 of the Pune Municipal Corporation Service Rules which provide that the post of Deputy City Engineer has to be filled up from amongst the existing work force.
Procedural History
Writ Petition No.161 of 2000 filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging appointment of respondent no.3 made in October 1999. During pendency, petitioner no.2 was promoted to the same post on 26.9.2001, so petition pressed only for petitioner no.1. Judgment delivered on 23rd August 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Pune Municipal Corporation Service Rules: Rule 7, Rule 10 of Chapter 14
