A candidate's promotion rights cannot be asserted based on interim stays without establishing clear entitlement under prevailing administrative policies.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 12th March, 2021 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, of dismissal of O.A. No. 564/2021 preferred by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner, along with the petition, has filed 54 documents as Annexures thereto and has hidden the impugned order as Annexure 51. The same leads to a lot of delay in, while reading the file, locating the impugned order. The counsel for the petitioner is requested to, in future file the impugned order preferably as the first Annexure or at best as the last Annexure.

3. The counsels for respondent no.1 Union of India (UOI), respondent no.2 Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and respondents no.4 & 5 Government of Maharashtra appear on advance notice and considering the nature of the controversy, we have, with the consent of the counsels, proceeded to hear the counsels finally at this stage itself.

4. The petitioner, on appearing in the Maharashtra Public Service Commission examination, on 16th June, 1987 was selected in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) Category.

5. The caste certificate of the petitioner, on the basis whereof the petitioner was selected in the ST Category, was however cancelled and the said cancellation was affirmed in an appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner filed W.P. (C) No.4055/1988 in the High Court of Bombay and in which petition, vide interim order dated 13th September, 1988, the Government of Maharashtra was directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Deputy Collector anywhere in the State of Maharashtra, clarifying that the said interim appointment was subject to the result of the petition.

6. The respondent no.4 Government of Maharashtra, during the pendency of the petition aforesaid, vide Resolution dated 15th June, 1995, took a decision that wherever the caste certificates of the candidates appointed/selected to the vacancies against the ST Categories were cancelled, the said candidates would be accommodated under the Special Backward Category, and a reservation of 2 % was created for the said purpose.

7. The writ petition aforesaid preferred by the petitioner, was finally dismissed, vide order dated 4th November, 2003, not finding any mistake or fault in the order of cancellation of the ST certificate of the petitioner. However since the petitioner, during the hearing of the said writ petition claimed that as per his School Leaving Certificate, though did not belong to the ST Category, belonged to another backward caste within the meaning of Special Backward Category for which 2% reservation had been created as aforesaid, it was observed that if the petitioner was entitled to any benefits on the basis of the caste to which he claimed to belong, the petitioner shall be entitled to approach the State of Maharashtra for necessary relief in that respect.

8. On dismissal as aforesaid of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner was extended the benefits under the Resolution dated 15th June, 1995 aforesaid of the Government of Maharashtra.

9. The petitioner, in the year 2000, was promoted as the Additional Collector and became eligible for consideration for promotion to Indian Administrative Service (IAS) of the Maharashtra cadre; the name of the petitioner was also included in the list prepared of eligible officers for the said purpose.

10.