SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 167

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR & VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Through Commissioner & Another – Appellants
Versus
Anil Shantaram Khoje & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2918 of 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.15868 of 2010] With Civil Appeal No. 2919 of 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12985 of 2011]
Decided On : 28-02-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
A rule becomes effective from the date of its promulgation by publication in the official gazette.

Headnote:(a) Administrative Law – Rules – Effective date – Extant Rules become operative only from the date of promulgation by publication in the Official Gazette. (Para 11)

       1952 SCR 110 : AIR 1951 SC 467; (1987) 1 SCC 658; (1996) 6 SCC 634; 1973 Crl.L.J. 453; (2006) 1 SCC 314; (2010) 1 SCC 730; (1999) 1 SCR 1121; (1875)1 ChD 426; AIR 1936 PC 253 – Relied upon

       (b) Service Law – Reservation – Roster – Has to be determined in accordance with the extant Rules – All concerned officers would then be entitled to challenge the fixation. (Para 12)

       Facts of the case:

       The writ petitioners before the High Court of Bombay were working in the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai as Assistant Municipal Commissioners and had prayed that their promotion to the vacant posts of Deputy Municipal Commissioner may be effected in accordance with the Rules framed under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

       The writ petitions were allowed.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court finding as to effective date cannot be sustained.

       

Judgment :-

Vikramajit Sen, J. –

1. Leave granted in both these petitions.

2. Although interim orders have not been granted in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.15868 of 2010, in the accompanying matter it had been ordered on 01.07.2011 that any promotion that may be made would be subject to the result of the petition.

3. The writ petitioners before the High Court of Bombay were working in the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai as Assistant Municipal Commissioners and had prayed that their promotion to the vacant posts of Deputy Municipal Commissioner may be effected in accordance with the Rules framed under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the “M.M.C. Act”). The relevant provisions are Sections 55 and 80B of the M.M.C. Act. Section 55 authorizes the Corporation to appoint Deputy Municipal Commissioner subject to confirmation by the State Government whereas sub-Section (4) of Section 80B of the M.M.C. Act requires the Corporation to frame Rules stipulating the eligibility and qualification criteria for the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner in the Mumbai Municipal Corporation; sub-Section (5) thereafter requires the Rules so framed to be published in the Official Gazette. It appears that the previous Rules were framed in the year 1988 and were duly published in the Official Gazette on 18.08.1988, according to which the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner was to be filled in by way of promotion from the post of Heads of Major Department (hereinafter referred to as “HOD”) or holders of equivalent posts having administrative experience of not less than 10 years or Ward Officers on the one hand and by selection through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission on the other in the ratio of 1:1, the vacancies being filled in by promotion and selection alternatively. The Roster points indicated in the Rules were: A/C/B/C/A/C (A – promotion of Ward Officer, B – promotion from HODs and C – selection through MPSC). It was further clarified that the appointing authority will decide whether the post earmarked for promotion is to be filled in by promoting HOD or Ward Officer. Thereafter, the Corporation proposed modifications in the then existing Rules in terms of Resolution No. 531 dated 21.09.2000, which were duly submitted to the State Government for according its approval. The State Government, however, neglected to grant sanction to the said Resolution and as a consequence the Commissioner addressed a letter dated 19.08.2003 to the Corporation suggesting other modifications in the Rules relating to promotions. These suggested amendments came to be approved by the Corporation leading to the passing of Resolution No. 752 dated 20.11.2003 amending the then existing Recruitment Rules and these were then forwarded to the State Government for its approval. The State Government accorded its approval with certain modifications with respect to the chronology to be followed in the Roster and appointment by way of deputation/transfer, unfortunately almost three years later vide its letter dated 04.10.2006. The said Resolution required 75% of the said posts to be filled in by promotion from the Assistant Municipal Commissioners/Ward Officers and 25% to be filled in by promotion of HOD, direct recruitment or by deputation. The Roster fixation indicated that the first and second vacancy has to be filled in by promotion from amongst Assistant Municipal Commissioners whereas the third vacancy would be filled up by promotion of HODs or direct recruitment or by deputation and the fourth vacancy would go to the Assistant Municipal Commissioner and so on and so forth.

4. The petitioners before the High Court, namely, Shri Anil Shantaram Khoje and Shri Prakash Krishnarao Thorat who are the contesting Respondents before us, were holding the post of Assistant Municipal Commissioners. Shri Ram B. Dhus was holding the post of HOD, and has filed the present Appeal along with the Mumbai Municipal Corporation f









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top