Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 27th April 2000 in Original Application Nos. 107 of 1999 and 146 of 1999. The dispute before the Tribunal concerned promotions to the cadre of Executive Engineers. Several officers entitled to such promotions had approached the Tribunal, which, after considering the relevant rules, issued six directions in paragraph 22 of its order. These directions included determination of cadre strength, promotions from 1970 to 1974 in accordance with Rule 4(2), determination of roster points and promotion of backward class officers from other cadres with seniority counted continuously (direction 3), stop-gap appointments to be fortuitous, obtaining MPSC approval for select lists, and finalization of seniority lists within six months. The State of Maharashtra took exception specifically to direction number 3, contending that it could not be issued in view of Rule 4 and Rule 2(g) of the Maharashtra Service of Engineers (Class I and Class II) (Regulation of seniority and preparation of revision of seniority lists) Rules, 1983. Rule 2(g) defined 'fortuitously appointed' as a person appointed in a vacancy not allocated for the class of officers to which the person belongs or in contravention of recruitment rules. Rule 4 provided for determination of cadre strength and manner of filling vacancies. The State argued that direction 3, by requiring promotions from outside the cadre to be treated as non-fortuitous, was inconsistent with these rules. The High Court agreed, noting that even if such appointments were made, they would have to be termed fortuitous under Rule 2(g). The Court held that the Tribunal could not have issued a direction contrary to the rules. Consequently, the petition was partly allowed: the impugned order was confirmed except for direction number 3, which was deleted. The rule was made partly absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority and Promotion Rules - Directions on Promotion Must Conform to Statutory Rules - Maharashtra Service of Engineers (Class I and Class II) (Regulation of seniority and preparation of revision of seniority lists) Rules, 1983, Rule 2(g), Rule 4(1), Rule 4(2) - The Tribunal directed that backward class officers promoted from other cadres to Executive Engineer posts as per roster points shall have seniority on continuous basis and not be considered fortuitous. The State challenged this as contrary to Rule 2(g) defining 'fortuitously appointed' and Rule 4 providing for cadre strength and promotion. Held: Direction No.3 is inconsistent with Rule 4 and Rule 2(g), therefore deleted. Remaining directions confirmed (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether direction No.3 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's order dated 27th April 2000, treating promotions of backward class officers from other cadres as non-fortuitous, is in contravention of Rule 2(g) and Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Service of Engineers (Class I and Class II) (Regulation of seniority and preparation of revision of seniority lists) Rules, 1983.
Final Decision
The writ petition is partly allowed. Direction No.3 of the Tribunal's order dated 27th April 2000 is deleted. The remaining directions are confirmed. Rule made partly absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Direction requiring non-fortuitous promotion of backward class officers from other cadres was inconsistent with Rule 2(g) definition of 'fortuitously appointed' and Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Service of Engineers (Class I and Class II) (Regulation of seniority and preparation of revision of seniority lists) Rules
- 1983
