VISHWAS ANNA SAWANT AND ORS. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 22-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VISHWAS ANNA SAWANT AND ORS. 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS. 
APRIL 22, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 16 and 46-Backward dasses-
Reservation in promoti01t-Municipal corporation Resolution dated Septem-
ber 12, 1975-Benefit of-Grant to one employee and denial to other~eld 
C unjustified. 
By a resolution dated September 12, 1975 the respondent- Municipal 
Corporation resolved to provide reservation for backward classes in 
promotions. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & ors. v. Mrs. 
Kalpana Sadhu Kamble & Ors., [1988) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 679, this Court 
D upheld the rule of reservation in promotions. Consequently, the corpora-
tion. resolved to enforce the rule of reservation in promotions and decided 
that the names of candidates belonging to backward classes who became 
eligible for promotion from 1975 onwards would be included in the deemed 
select list as per rules after they were declared fit for promotion by 
E Selection Committee. Accordingly, the Corporation prepared· a 
senioritywise list or the backward classes employees considered fit for 
promotion to the post of Asstt. Engineers and gave the fitment in the 
vacancies available to them at the respective dates in the roster, but they 
were not given promotion. M, an employee approached the High Court for 
granting the relief in a writ petition which was filed in a representative 
F capacity not only for himself but also for all backward class citizens. He 
was given the benefit or promotion, when he initiated the contempt 
proceedings, bnt when the appellants approached the High Court by an 
independent writ petition, the same benefit was not given to them. They 
preferred appeal before this Court. 
G 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, 
this Court 
HELD : 1. the right to consideration for promotion is a fundamental 
right guaranteed to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in fulfilment of 
H the mandate under Article 16(1) read with Article 46 of the Constitution 
656 
' ' 
.-
V.ASAWANT v. MUNICIPALCORPN. BOMBAY 
657 
to render socio-economic justice. The corporation is enjoined to give effect A 
> \ 
to the constitutional mandate. (659-G-H) 
·• 
, 
' 
2. The High Court was not justified in refusing relief to the appel-
lants. The appellants stand in the same position as M and therefore the 
Corporation cannot take a different and inconsistent stand denying 
promotion to the appellants who stand on par with M. Appellants were B 
nor declared unfit for promotion by any resolution passed by the Corpora-
tion Promotion Committee or competent officer. On the other hand the 
Corporation relied on the interview conducted by it, which method or 
principle was declared by the High Court to be illegal. Under these 
circumsta11ces, the . action of the respondent-Corporation in not giving C 
promotion to the appellants to the post of Asstt. Engineers from the post 
of Sub-Engineers is clearly illegal. (659-E, 660-A-C] 
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. v. Mrs. Kalpana 
Sadhu Kamole & Ors., (1988) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 678, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4073 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.93 of the Bombay High 
Court in W .P. No. 359 of 1993. 
Ms. Indira Jaising and Sanjay Parikh, for the Appellants. 
N.B. Shetye and D.N. Misra for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : . 
Leave granted. 
D 
E 
F 
Sequential to the resolution dated May 23, 1974 of the Govt. of 
Maharashtra to provide reservation for backward classes in promotions, 
namely Scheduled Castes and of their converts to Buddhism, Scheduled 
Tribes and the denotified tribes an nomadic tribes al 13%, 7% and 4% G 
respe.otively in Fifty Point Roster, the first respondent resolved on August 
12, 1975 to proved reservation in the services of the Corporation at the 
stage of promotion. It carried into effect to make promotions on the basis 
of seniority subject to fitness. During 1980, the sub-Engineers belonging to 
reserved classes became eligible, but were not promoted. A representation H 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
in that behalf was made to give them appointment by promotion in accord· 
ance with the above resolution. Writ Petition No. 176 of 1980 was filed by 
Vishnu Des Patel and others in a representative capacity questioning the· 
policy of reservation in promotion. Equally Writ Pe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.