Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Krishnagopal Wasudeoprasad Mishra, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench seeking promotion from Class IV to Class III post in the Subordinate Judicial Service. He was working as a Junior Clerk in Civil Court, Katol. The petition was filed against the District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, and other respondents including junior clerks and state authorities. Over time, the petitioner took voluntary retirement and many respondents retired. The petitioner restricted his claim to prayer clause (ii) seeking promotion under the Recruitment Rules in Appendix-A to Civil Manual (Paragraph 577(iii)). The District Judge resisted the claim, filing an affidavit stating that the petitioner was at Sr. No. 3 in the seniority list of qualified Class IV employees and that no one junior to him was promoted. The court noted that both counsel agreed that the District Judge may promote a peon to clerk subject to qualification, seniority, and fitness. The court found that the petitioner could not name any junior who was promoted superseding him. The additional affidavit dated 29.2.2008 was sufficient to dismiss the case. The court held that promotion is not a matter of right and dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Class IV to Class III - Recruitment Rules - The petitioner sought promotion under Appendix-A to Civil Manual (Paragraph 577(iii)). The court held that promotion is not a matter of right and is subject to the District Judge's satisfaction regarding qualification, seniority, and fitness. The petitioner failed to name any junior who was promoted superseding him. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion from Class IV to Class III post in the Subordinate Judicial Service under the Recruitment Rules.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Promotion is not a matter of right
- District Judge has discretion to promote based on qualification
- seniority
- and fitness
- Petitioner must establish supersession to claim promotion
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (06) 102
WRIT PETITION NO. 2127 OF 1992
Mr. Amit Balpande h/f Mr. R.S. Parsodkar Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. Sunil V. Manohar, Senior Advocate for Respondents 1 & 13, Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, AGP, for Respondent no. 12
Krishnagopal s/o Wasudeoprasad Mishra
The District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur; S.B. Muley; R.K. Kanojiya; Jaiprakash Choudhary; Raju B. Raut; A.R. Khasale; J.S. Meshram; M.D. Boradkar; A.R. Chitaghare; M.D. Balane (deleted); R.S. Rajankar; State of Maharashtra; Registrar, Bombay High Court, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking promotion from Class IV to Class III post in the Subordinate Judicial Service.
Remedy Sought
Promotion in pursuance of Recruitment Rules for recruitment to Class III and Class IV Services in the Subordinate Judicial Service, Appendix-A to Civil Manual (Paragraph 577(iii)).
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed he was entitled to promotion but was not promoted.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion from Class IV to Class III post under the Recruitment Rules.
Whether the petitioner has established any supersession by juniors.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued for promotion based on seniority and qualification.
Respondent District Judge argued that promotion is not a matter of right and petitioner could not name any junior promoted superseding him.
Ratio Decidendi
Promotion from Class IV to Class III is not a matter of right; it is subject to the District Judge's satisfaction regarding qualification, seniority, and fitness. The petitioner failed to establish any supersession by juniors.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner cannot ask the promotion as a matter of right.
The respondent no. 1 had informed the petitioner that ... he will be given chance for interview and will be considered for promotion on merits and he was also asked to disclose the names of employees from the Peons to whom the promotion is given who are juniors to him and he was unable to name a single person junior to him and as such promoted.
Procedural History
Writ Petition No. 2127 of 1992 filed in Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. Over time, petitioner took voluntary retirement and many respondents retired. Petitioner restricted claim to prayer clause (ii). Additional affidavit filed by respondent no. 1 on 29.2.2008. Petition dismissed on 24.06.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Recruitment Rules for recruitment to Class III and Class IV Services in the Subordinate Judicial Service, Appendix-A to Civil Manual: Paragraph 577 (iii)
