Bombay High Court
Smt.Latabai Wd/O Dhanraj Borkar vs Chief Executive Officer & Anr on 9 June, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/3 0906wp231.2000-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 231 OF 2000
PETITIONER :- Smt. Latabai Wd/o Dhanraj Borkar, aged 39
years, Occ : Service, r/o Sarvodaya Ward,
Gadchiroli, District Gadchiroli.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Chief Executive Officer, District Supervision
ig Cooperative Society, Gadchiroli.
2. President, District Supervision Cooperative
Society, Gadchiroli.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 09.06.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondents to promote the petitioner in Category-C. The petitioner
seeks an order restraining the respondents from filling up the posts in
Category-C to the exclusion of the petitioner.
2/3 0906wp231.2000-Judgment
2. The husband of the petitioner was working with the
respondents and the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 22/02/1996
on compassionate ground. The petitioner applied to the respondents
for promoting her to the post in Category-C, as she had improved her
qualifications by passing the S.S.C. Examination. According to the
petitioner, there was 30% reservation for women in the case of
promotion and hence, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted. The
representation of the petitioner was not favourably considered and the
respondents decided not to promote the petitioner when no process of
promoting the employees was in progress. By the order, dated
04/08/1999, the Chief Executive Officer of the District Supervision
Society informed the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Nagpur that merely because the petitioner had improved her
qualification, she could not have been appointed and her claim for
promotion could be considered when the posts would be filled by
promotion.
3. We do not find any illegality in the action on the part of
the respondents in refusing to promote the petitioner on her request.
Merely because the petitioner had improved her qualification and had
passed the S.S.C. Examination, she could not have been promoted as no
process was initiated by the respondents for filling the posts in
Category-C by promotion. By the order, dated 04/08/1999, it is rightly
conveyed by the respondents to the District Deputy Registrar that the
3/3 0906wp231.2000-Judgment
individual claim of the petitioner could not have been considered and
her claim for promotion could be considered along with all the eligible
candidates as and when the process for promotion would be initiated.
Since there is no illegality in the action of the respondents, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The writ petition is dismissed as such with no order as to
costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
