LexSAYYED FAKHRUL ISLAM versus MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SAYYED FAKHRUL ISLAM A v. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. AND ORS. APRIL 26, 2002 [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. V ARIA VA, JJ.] B - Service Law : __; Employee-Temporary promotion-Reversion Order-Validity of- c Employee temporarily promoted against direct sector vacancies-Condition that on availability of candidates from direct sector he would be reverted to original post-Employee considered by Departmental Promotion Committee-- Found unfit for promotion-Reversion order held valid-'-Not violative of Standing Order 32 of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The appellant a Senior Foreman in the respondent-Transport D > Corporation was temporarily promoted as Depot Manager 'A' 8Jld subseqnently revert"'1 to his original post. His order of promotion specifically provided that his promotion was against the direct sector vacancies and on availability of candidates from direct sector he would be reverted to his original post. He unsuccessfully assailed the validity of the reversi?n order E before High Court of Bombay. In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalfof the appellant that as the post of Depot Manager 'A' was not filled up on regular basis the • appellant was entitled to continue temporarily on the said post under Standing Order 32 of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. In its counter F affidavit the respondent-Corporation averred that the appellant was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee but he was not found fit for promotion. Therefore, he was reverted to his original post. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD : 1. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the High t Court. The right conferred under Standing Order 32 of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation on a candidate appointed temporarily, is that if no direct recruit is available even after making a fresh attempt, he must be considered for substantive promotion. The appellant was in fact considered 463 H 464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 3 S.C.R. A for regular promotion but he was not found fit; therefore, the reversion cannot be said to be in breach of Standing Order 32(a). However, this order does not preclude the authorities from considering his case for promotion to the said post in future in accordance with law. [466-G-H; 467-A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2937 of B 2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.2000 of the Mumbai High Court in W.P. No. 3216 of 1998. c A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant. Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, R.S. Hegde, S. Shanna, Prashant Jain and P.P. Singh for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. Leave is granted. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, in Writ Petition No.3216 of 1998 dated April 6, 2000 is brought und~r challenge by the appellant. By the said order the High E Court cfismissed the. Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The facts giving rise to the petition may be briefly noted to appreciate the grievance of the appellant. On July 4, 1975, the appellant was initially appointed as Clerk by the first respondent and thereafter as Assistant Works Superintendent from direct sector in the month of June 1979. He passed F promotional examination and became eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Depot Manager 'A' I Assistant Mechanical Engineer in July 1985. On September 5, 1994, he was temporarily promoted as Depot Manager 'A' Junior(M)/Assistant Mechanical Engineer in Class II Junior Grade. On August 28, 1998, he was, however, reverted to his original post of Senior Foreman. He assailed the validity of the said order in the aforementioned writ G petition before the High Court. By the impugned order the said writ petition was dismissed. Mr. A.K. Sanghi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that as the post of Depot Manager 'A' was not filled up on regular basis the appellant was entitled to continue temporarily on the said post H having regard to the tenns of his promotion. -;.__ -1. ... r r -+ ., - - S.F ISLAM, .. MAHARASHT~A STATE ROAD TRANS. CORPN. [S.S.M. QUADR!, J] 465 It may be appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of the terms of the A order of promotion of the appellant which reads as under : "General Establishment Order No. 325(SB) of 1994 The following Sr. Foreman/Assistan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.