The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotions must be in accordance with the sanctioned posts and set up, as per the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 7.7.2008 (Annexure P/1) and also the order dated 3.9.2008 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur whereby respondents No. 6 to 15 have been promoted contrary to the set up and sanctioned posts.

2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the petitioners No. 1 & 2 were initially appointed on 25.11.1985 and 18.1.1989 respectively on ad hoc basis and thereafter, their services were regularized on the post of Upper Division Teacher on 21.9.1993 by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur vide Annexure P/3. Out of total 13 school run by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, 07 schools are grand-in-aid school namely MR Sapre Higher Secondary School, Pandit Ramdayal Tiwari Higher Secondary School, Shahid Smarak Higher Secondary School, BP Purari Higher Secondary School, Nivedita Girls Higher Secondary School, Saraswati Girls Higher Secondary School and Naveen Saraswati Girls Higher Secondary School. As per the set up, in these 13 school there are only two faculties i.e. Arts and Science and there would be maximum 6 Lecturers, 3 of Arts and 3 of Science. There were 39 vacancies declared for promotion from the post of Upper Division Teacher (UDG) to the post of Lecture and as per set up, 50% ought to have been from Arts faculty and 50% from the Science faculty. As such, 19 UDT from Arts faculty and 20 UDT from Science faculty ought to have been promoted. Although as per the old set up there is no post for Commerce faculty, but the respondent authorities have promoted four persons from Commerce faculty out of no sanctioned post and reserved 24 posts for Arts faculty, although ought to have reserved 19 posts and promoted 20 persons whereas only 8 persons from Science faculty have been promoted, although 20 posts ought to have been reserved for Science faculty, but no teacher is available in the respondent department as scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, therefore, total 32 UDT have been promoted out of total 39 sanctioned post.

As per the circular, since there is no set up for Commerce faculty for the post of Lecturer, the UDT of Commerce faculty will teach in the Higher Secondary School but would not be promoted vide Annexure P/6. Further, in violation of the set up, they have promoted UDT to the post of Lecturer of Sanskrit and Economics but despite there being need of Lecturer of Mathematics and Physics, they have not promoted the UDT for the said post. The petitioners made various representations against the said act of the respondent authorities but of no avail. Though the petitioners are eligible for being promoted to the post of Lecturer in the respective subjects but the respondent authorities in connivance with the private respondents deprived them of their promotion and promoted respondents No. 6 to 15 contrary to the set up. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

”10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee dated 07.07.2008 (Annexure P/1) and the orders dated 03.09.2008 passed by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (Annexure P/2) and further be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct the Departmental Promotion Committee as per the old set-up by considering to promote 19 posts for Arts and 20 of Science subject and further considered the petitioners in the D.P.C. to be promoted to the post of Lecturer.

10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned recommendation of the DPC dated 7.7.2008 and imp