Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D.Dhanuka, S.M.Modak, JJ.
Kishore D. Raorane – Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Judicature At Bombay – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2295 of 2008
Decided On : 15-06-2022
Promotion Dispute - High Court Administration - 1981, 1995 Rules - The petitioner, a former employee of the High Court Administration, filed a petition claiming that he was not promoted in time due to the wrong application and interpretation of the rules by the administration. The petitioner argued that securing the highest marks in the Higher Standard Departmental Examination should have made him eligible for promotion and seniority over other employees. The court thoroughly considered the provisions of the 1981, 1995 Rules for passing examinations and the 1985 recruitment Rules and found no support for the petitioner's interpretation. The court also rejected the petitioner's objections to the preparation of the seniority list, as the respondents were legitimately shown as seniors due to exemptions and relaxations granted by the administration. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to satisfy the test of 'merit cum seniority' and that the arguments were predominantly based on the principle of 'seniority cum merit,' which was not applicable to the posts in question.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former employee of the High Court Administration, claimed that he was not promoted in time due to the wrong application and interpretation of the rules by the administration. He argued that securing the highest marks in the Higher Standard Departmental Examination should have made him eligible for promotion and seniority over other employees. The court thoroughly considered the provisions of the 1981, 1995 Rules for passing examinations and the 1985 recruitment Rules and found no support for the petitioner's interpretation. The court also rejected the petitioner's objections to the preparation of the seniority list, as the respondents were legitimately shown as seniors due to exemptions and relaxations granted by the administration. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to satisfy the test of 'merit cum seniority' and that the arguments were predominantly based on the principle of 'seniority cum merit,' which was not applicable to the posts in question.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim of being wrongfully denied promotion and seniority due to the wrong application and interpretation of the rules was not supported by the provisions of the 1981, 1995 Rules and the 1985 recruitment Rules. The court also rejected the petitioner's objections to the preparation of the seniority list, as the respondents were legitimately shown as seniors due to exemptions and relaxations granted by the administration. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to satisfy the test of 'merit cum seniority' and that the arguments were predominantly based on the principle of 'seniority cum merit,' which was not applicable to the posts in question.
Issues: The main issues considered by the court included the petitioner's claim of being wrongfully denied promotion and seniority, the interpretation and application of the 1981, 1995 Rules and the 1985 recruitment Rules, the objections to the preparation of the seniority list, and the application of the principle of 'merit cum seniority' in the promotional posts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the test of 'merit cum seniority' and that the arguments were predominantly based on the principle of 'seniority cum merit,' which was not applicable to the posts in question.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to satisfy the test of 'merit cum seniority' and that the arguments were predominantly based on the principle of 'seniority cum merit,' which was not applicable to the posts in question.
JUDGMENT
1. We are dealing with a Petition filed by the Petitioner who joined the services of the High Court Administration on Original Side as a Clerk in the year 1985 and retired in the year 2021 from the post of Master (Adm). During this tenure, he worked as Clerk, Assistant, Sec. Officer, Master Administration. During his tenure, he passed Lower Standard Departmental Examination and Higher Standard Departmental Examination. His main grievance is that though he has secured highest marks in the Higher Standard Departmental Examination, as compared to the Respondent Nos.2 to 13 and when principle of merit-cum- seniority is applicable for promotion to the post of Sec. Officer he was not promoted earlier than other Respondents. According to the Petitioner the High Court Administration has wrongly applied and interpreted the Rules and has not promoted the Petitioner in time. His further grievance is that, as he was not promoted in time, the other Respondents superseded him in the promotion which caused great prejudice to him.
2. It is important to note that, his interpretation of securing highest marks as a parameter for promotion was turned down by the High Court Administration and also by this Court in his First Writ Petition bearing No. 225/2001. The Petitioner however has raised the same issue.
3. We have gone into this issue after considering the provisions of 1981, 1995 Rules for passing examination so also after going through the 1985 recruitment Rules and 2002 Rules applicable to the employees of Original Side of this Court. After going through the record thoroughly, we do not find any support to the contention of the Petitioner that securing highest marks is the criteria for promotion. Inspite of knowing this fact, again in this Petition this issue has been raised by the Petitioner. We do not find any support for this interpretation. In fact we were inclined to saddle heavy cost on the Petitioner for raising this issue again and again; however we have restrained ourselves from doing that for the simple reason that the Petitioner has retired from the service.
4. In order to support this ground, the Petitioner has also raised other grounds. It deals with the exemption granted by the High Court administration to some of the Respondents from appearing in Higher Standard Departmental Examination. It also deals with the relaxation granted by the High Court Administration to some of the Respondents while considering the educational qualification and also while considering the experience criteria. However, after going through record, we find that, this exemption and relaxation have been granted by the High Court Administration, as per the provisions of Rules. It is pertinent to note that, the Petitioner has not challenged the power of Hon'ble Chief Justice to grant such relaxation and exemption. Hence, we are also not inclined to accept these grounds.
5. There is also an objection taken by the Petitioner to the preparation of 'Seniority List'. We are also not inclined to entertain this ground for the simple reason that, the Respondents Nos. 2 to 13 were shown as seniors to the Petitioner on the basis of the relaxation and exemption granted to them legitimately. Hence, we do not find any merit in this Petition. We will give reasons for that herein after.
PREVIOUS PETITIONS
First Writ Petition.
6. Prior to this Petition, there were two Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioner. Writ Petition No. 225 of 2001 was filed by the Petitioner thereby raising similar grievance of not giving proper weightage to higher marks while promoting the Petitioner and granting exemption and relaxation to the Respondents. This Court as per the order dtd. 23/2/2005 was pleased to direct the High Court Administration to consider the Writ Petition of the Petitioner as a representation and to decide the same. While disposing of this Writ Petition, this C
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of 'merit cum seniority' was applicable to the promotional posts in question, and the petitioner failed to satisfy this test, le....
Promotion based on merit must be prioritized over seniority, requiring a comparative assessment of candidates' qualifications and service records.
Promotion in non-selection posts must adhere to seniority without subjective merit evaluations in the absence of unsuitability, reinforcing equality rights under the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotion decisions are based on seniority-cum-merit and the application of relevant rules, specifically the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Prom....
Promotion from Class-IV to Junior Assistant follows seniority-cum-merit among those qualifying typing test at 30+ wpm; higher speeds do not justify superseding seniors absent rule prescription.
Promotions must be based on seniority subject to fitness, not solely on merit or ACR grading, as per the applicable rules.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
