ISMAIL ABDUL LATIF SHAIKH versus STATE OF MAHARASHRA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 62 · Decided: 29-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ISMAIL ABDUL LATIF SHAIKH 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHRA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 29, 1996 
B 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Bombay Prohibition and Excise Department Rules of 1958 relating to 
C promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector : 
Rule ~onstable-.Promotion to the post of Sub- Inspecto,-Require-
ment of physical measurement-Appellant was rejected in 1966 on ground of 
chest measurement being short of required standard-Promotion given in 
197(}--Held, ndc relating to physical requirement not applicable in case of 
D Sub-Jnspectors-Appc/lant would be deemed to be promoted from date of 
rejection in 1966-Notional promotion to be confined to benefit of seniority 
alone. 
The appellant, a constable in the Prohibition and Excise Department 
of the respodent-State, was, in 1966, interviewed for promotion to the post 
E of Sub-Inspector, but was rejected on the ground that his chest measure-
ment was short of the required standard. He was promoted to the said po.st 
in 1970. His claim that his promotion ought to be effective from 1966 was 
rejected by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. 
F 
G 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended for the appeUant that his 
rejection in 1966 was not tenable since there was no requirment as regards 
measurement of chest under the 1958 Rules; and that the Government had 
allowed some persons to hold the promotional post though they were below 
the required height. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The rule relating to physical requirement has no ap-
plication in the case of Sub-Inspectors. Rule 3 of 1958 Rules has not 
mentioned about physical requirement as qualification for Sub· Inspectors. 
[63-H; 64-A] 
H 
1.2. Besides, the Government having allowed some persons to hold 
62 
I.AL. SHAIKHv. STATE [HANSARIA,J.] 
63 
the promotional post of Sub-Inspector despite their being below the re- A 
quired height, the same benefit has to be made available to the appellant 
I 
as the short fall of physical requirement in his case is relatable to the chest 
being not of required measurement. [64-B] 
2. The promotion of the appellant to the post of Sub-Inspector shall 
be deemed to be from the date of his rejection in the year 1966. This notional B 
promotion shall be confined to the benefit of seniority alone. [64-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5522 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.6.93 of the Maharashtra C 
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay in T.A.NO. 306 of 1991. 
A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellants. 
S.M. Jadhav and D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
·~· 
HANSARIA, J. The appellant joined the Prohibition and Excise 
Department as a Constable in the year 1961. The next promotional post is 
that of Sub-Inspector. He was indeed interviewed for that post in the year E 
1966, but was not promoted on the ground that his chest measurement was 
less than the standard said to be required to hold the post. He ultimately 
came to be promoted as a Sub-Inspector in 1970. His grievance, however, 
is that the promotion has to relate back to 1966 inasmuch as his rejection 
in that year for the promotional post on the ground above noted was not 
,,. 
tenable for two reasons : (1) there is no such requirement as would appear, F 
inter alia, from the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal 
itself in the case of one Shashikant Dhaku Chavan rendered in Transfer 
Application No.278 of 1991 on 27.8.1993, whereas his approach to the 
Tribunal was dismissed by an order dated 15.6.1993 on the ground of his 
having not fulfilled the physical requirement; and (2) the Government had G 
allowed S/Shri S.H. Avhad and S.K. Thorat to hold the promotional post 
though they were below height. 
2. We find merit in both the grievances inasmuch as the rule relating 
to physical requirement has no application in the case of Sub-Inspectors 
as would appear from the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Chavan. H 
64 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Chavan's case cannot be distinguished on the ground that he belonged to 
clerical branch whereas the appellant was in constabulary, as sought to be 
done by the learned counsel for the State, inasmuch as Rule 3 noted by 
the Tribunal in Chavan's case has not mentioned about physical require-
ment as qualification for Sub-Inspectors. This apart, the Government 
B having allowed the aforesaid two persons to hold the promotional post of 
sub-Inspector de
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.