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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Madhav J.Jamdar, J.
Anilkumar Rupchand Ukey – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3491 of 2022
Decided On : 11-10-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Abhinav Chandrachud, Advocate, Pramod G.Kathane, Advocate, Vishwajit Sawant, Advocate, Nitin Dhumal, Advocate, Himanshu Takke, Advocate

The employer's decision on recruitment and promotion falls within its exclusive domain, and judicial review can only be exercised if there is a violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, arbitrariness, or mala fides.

Headnote:

Promotion - Director (Legal) - Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - 2007 Recruitment Regulations, 2011 Amendment - The court found that the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Director (Legal) was not exceptional and did not warrant a mandatory order for promotion. The Commission had the discretion to determine the mode of recruitment and was not obligated to first explore promotional appointment. The petitioner's failure to apply for the post despite being eligible was held against him. The court emphasized that the employer's decision on recruitment and promotion falls within its exclusive domain, and judicial review can only be exercised if there is a violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, arbitrariness, or mala fides.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Deputy Director (Legal) of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, sought a writ petition for promotion to the post of Director (Legal) and challenged the Commission's decision to fill the post by nomination. The post had been vacant for nearly a decade, and the petitioner claimed to be the only eligible candidate for promotional appointment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's claim for promotion was not exceptional and did not warrant a mandatory order for promotion. The Commission had the discretion to determine the mode of recruitment and was not obligated to first explore promotional appointment. The petitioner's failure to apply for the post despite being eligible was held against him. The court emphasized that the employer's decision on recruitment and promotion falls within its exclusive domain, and judicial review can only be exercised if there is a violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, arbitrariness, or mala fides.

Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Director (Legal) and the Commission's decision to fill the post by nomination, as well as the petitioner's failure to apply for the post despite being eligible.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the employer's decision on recruitment and promotion falls within its exclusive domain, and judicial review can only be exercised if there is a violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, arbitrariness, or mala fides. The Commission had the discretion to determine the mode of recruitment and was not obligated to first explore promotional appointment.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the court held that the petitioner's failure to apply for the post despite being eligible was held against him. The Commission was not obligated to first explore promotional appointment, and the process for filling up the post of Director (Legal) by nomination was allowed to continue. The petitioner was advised to seek promotional appointment if the Commission found none of the aspirants suitable for the post.

JUDGMENT

DIPANKAR DATTA, J. - The petitioner is the Deputy Director (Legal) of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, Mumbai (hereafter "the Commission", for short). He has been holding such post since 2/7/2012. He has also been holding additional charge of the post of Director (Legal) of the Commission from 18/4/2019. In view of his educational and other attainments, coupled with the fact that he has been working on the post of Director (Legal) for almost three years, the petitioner claims that he is the only eligible and entitled candidate for promotional appointment on the post of Director (Legal) of the Commission.

2. By presenting this writ petition dtd. 28/3/2022, the petitioner seeks the following relief: -

(a) direction upon the respondents to produce entire papers and proceedings including all office notes for grant of promotion to the officers and staff working on the establishment of the Commission from 2017 till date.

(b) direction upon the Commission as well as the Chairman of the Commission "to hold the Petitioner entitled for promotion to the post of Director (Legal), Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission as per the Regulations, 2007, and Amended Regulations, 2011 r/w office order dtd. 9/12/2011 and already passed the Department Examination".

(c) direction upon the Commission and its Chairman to issue "an order of promotion in the name of the Petitioner on the post of Director (Legal), Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission as per the Regulations, 2007, and Amended Regulations, 2011 from 2/7/2017".

(d) direction upon the respondents "to maintain status quo with regard to the post of Director (Legal) Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission during the pendency of present writ petition".

3. It is not in dispute that the post of Director (Legal) of the Commission has been lying vacant for nearly a decade.

It is also not in dispute that previous attempts to fill up the post have proved abortive. Having continued to be in additional charge of the post of the Director (Legal) of the Commission for over three years, it is not unusual for the petitioner to claim that he be considered for promotion on such post; however, we find it somewhat unusual for the petitioner, who is trained in law, to seek relief on terms as noted above. Law is well settled that no Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution ought to make a mandatory order directing that a petitioner before it should be promoted to a higher post unless, of course, a very exceptional case is made out for grant of such a relief. This case, for reasons to follow, does not appear to be such an exception where a mandatory order for promotion should be issued.

4. The Commission has framed the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recruitment of Conditions of Service of Employees) Regulations, 2007 (hereafter "the 2007 Recruitment Regulations", for short). Such regulations contain provisions for appointment on the post of Director (Legal). We consider it appropriate to reproduce below the relevant provisions: -

"1. Director (Legal)

Recruitment to the post of Director (Legal) shall be either: -

(i) By nomination on regular basis, Or

(ii) By appointment on promotion Or

(iii) By appointment on deputation

(i) By nomination on regular basis Educational Qualification: -

Post Graduate Degree in Law from a Recognized University/Law school

Experience: -

(a) Minimum 10 years post qualification experience in appearing in various Courts, representing cases before Judicial/Quasi-Judicial bodies, handling the legal affairs of any Public/private sector organization or Public Authority. The candidate should have atleast 4 years experience in appearing in courts/tribunals/ Forums etc., as an advocate, as defined under the Advocates Act, 1961

(b) Written and verbal communication skills in Marathi and English;

(c) Computer literacy is compulsory;

(d) Candidates having at least 3 years experience in Power Sector/Regulator Commis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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