Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mukund Shrivastava, a graduate engineer, joined the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) as a Junior Engineer on probation for one year on 6th April 1981. He was re-designated as an Assistant Engineer with effect from the same date by an order dated 18th February 1987, but continued to be addressed as Junior Engineer. The petitioner claimed that he worked honestly and diligently but was harassed by his superiors through memos and threats of disciplinary action. He was not made permanent. In July 1991, the respondents promoted several Junior Engineers (Respondent Nos.4 to 12) to the post of Deputy Engineer, superseding the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to set aside those promotions and to direct his own promotion with retrospective effect. The respondents opposed the petition, relying on circulars dated 1st January 1985 and 1st January 1986, which prescribed that promotion to the post of Deputy Engineer requires a minimum of five years of service as a Junior Engineer and confirmation in that post. The court noted that the petitioner was never confirmed in service, despite completing his probation. The re-designation as Assistant Engineer did not amount to confirmation. The petitioner did not challenge the non-confirmation or seek a declaration of deemed confirmation. The court held that since the petitioner was not confirmed, he was not eligible for promotion under the circulars. The juniors who were promoted had been confirmed earlier. There was no discrimination as the respondents acted in accordance with the circulars. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Eligibility - Confirmation - The petitioner, a Junior Engineer (re-designated as Assistant Engineer), was not confirmed in service despite completing probation. The respondents promoted his juniors who were confirmed earlier. The court held that promotion to the post of Deputy Engineer requires confirmation in the feeder post as per circulars dated 1-1-1985 and 1-1-1986. Since the petitioner was not confirmed, he was not eligible for promotion. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Confirmation - Re-designation - The petitioner was re-designated as Assistant Engineer but continued to be addressed as Junior Engineer. The court noted that re-designation does not amount to confirmation. The petitioner's failure to challenge the non-confirmation or seek a declaration of deemed confirmation was fatal. (Paras 3-8) C) Service Law - Discrimination - The petitioner alleged discrimination as his juniors were promoted. The court held that there was no discrimination because the juniors were confirmed in service, whereas the petitioner was not. The respondents' action was based on valid circulars and not arbitrary. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who was not confirmed in service, was entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Engineer in supersession of his juniors who were confirmed earlier.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Promotion eligibility requires confirmation in service
- Circulars dated 1-1-1985 and 1-1-1986 require minimum 5 years service as Junior Engineer for promotion to Deputy Engineer
- Petitioner not confirmed despite re-designation
- No discrimination as juniors were confirmed earlier
