High Court Allows Writ Petition Quashing Municipal Corporation's Promotion Process for Superintending Engineer Posts Due to Non-Compliance with Court Directions and Violation of Service Rules

Sub Category: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY

Admin

2026-02-15 16:28:05

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by four Executive Engineers of Municipal Corporation challenging their exclusion from promotion to Superintending Engineer posts. The Petitioners contended that the Departmental Promotion Committee's order dated 11 December 2025 was cryptic, non-reasoned, and contrary to directions issued by a coordinate Bench on 11 November 2025. The Respondents argued that the final seniority list dated 11 September 2024 contained errors and should not be implemented. The Court held that the Impugned Order violated principles of natural justice, was contrary to previous court directions, and the final seniority list was binding. The Court quashed the promotion process and directed fresh consideration of the Petitioners' cases for promotion.

Headnote

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay -- Civil Appellate Jurisdiction -- Writ Petition No. 17202 of 2025 -- Petitioners, Departmental Promotion Committee,The Petitioners filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writs to quash the promotion process for Superintending Engineer posts -- The Court held the Impugned Order dated 11 December 2025 was cryptic, non-reasoned, and contrary to previous court directions -- The final seniority list dated 11 September 2024 was binding and should have been implemented -- The promotion process violated principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation -- The Court quashed the Impugned Order and directed fresh consideration of Petitioners' cases

Premium Content

The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access key legal points

Issue of Consideration: The Issue of validity and legality of the promotion process for the post of Superintending Engineer in Pune Municipal Corporation

Premium Content

The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access critical case issues

Final Decision

The Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the Impugned Order dated 11 December 2025 and the entire promotion process, and directed the Respondents to consider the Petitioners' cases for promotion afresh in accordance with the final seniority list dated 11 September 2024 and previous court directions

2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 12

Writ Petition No. 17202 of 2025

2026-02-03

R. I. Chagla J. , Advait M. Sethna J.

2026:BHC-AS:5536-DB

Mr. Anil Anturkar, Mr. Bhushan G. Deshmukh, Mr. Aryan M. Deshmukh, Mr. Aniket Kanawade, Mr. Irvin D'zouza for Petitioners, Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni, Mr. Gourav Shahane, Mr. Shreyas R. Zarkar for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Surel Shah, Mr. Pratik Deshmukh for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6

Bipin Vasant Shinde, Rohidas Nivrutti Gavhane, Mukund Chintaman Barve, Ajay Dattatraya Wayse

Pune Municipal Corporation, Departmental Promotion Committee, Abhijeet Arun Ambekar, Pravin Gajanan Shende, Bhausaheb Shrirang Shelar, Rajendra Marutrao Jadhav

Premium Content

The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access critical case indexes

Nature of Litigation: Service matter challenging promotion process for Superintending Engineer posts in Pune Municipal Corporation

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought writs to quash the promotion process and order dated 11 December 2025, and direction to consider their cases for promotion

Filing Reason

Petitioners were aggrieved by exclusion from promotion despite being eligible as per final seniority list dated 11 September 2024

Previous Decisions

Coordinate Bench order dated 11 November 2025 in Writ Petition No. 12046 of 2025 had given specific directions regarding promotion process

Issues

Whether the Impugned Order dated 11 December 2025 was valid and legal Whether the promotion process complied with previous court directions and principles of natural justice Whether the final seniority list dated 11 September 2024 was binding on the Respondents

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued the Impugned Order was cryptic, non-reasoned, and contrary to court directions -- Petitioners contended the final seniority list should be implemented -- Respondents argued the seniority list contained errors and should not be implemented -- Respondents contended promotions should be based on initial entry dates rather than the final seniority list

Ratio Decidendi

Administrative orders must be reasoned and speaking orders -- Final seniority lists are binding unless set aside by competent authority -- Previous court directions must be complied with in subsequent proceedings -- Promotion processes must adhere to principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation

Judgment Excerpts

This is another contest in service jurisprudence where we are called upon to adjudicate the validity and legality of the promotion process -- The fulcrum of the Petitioners' contention is that the Impugned Order is cryptic, non-reasoned, non-speaking -- The Petitioners are seeking implementation of the final seniority list dated 11 September 2024 which entitles them to such promotion

Procedural History

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Rule issued and made returnable forthwith -- Matter reserved for judgment on 19 January 2026 -- Judgment pronounced on 03 February 2026