Dadarao Jaggannath Shende vs The C.E.O.,Z.P.Wardha & 2 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 5844 Bom

                                                                                  1                                                                wp2362.02

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                                                       WRIT PETITION NO.2362/2002

Dadarao S/o Jagganath Shende, 
aged 46  Yrs., Occu. Service, 
R/o Ward No.7, Nalanda Nagar, 
Sevagram Nagar, Wardha.                                                                                                                                         ..Petitioner.

              ..Vs..

1.            The Chief Executive Officer,
              Zilla Parishad, Wardha. 

2.            Shri Bhimrao K. Gadge,
              Occu. Service, Panchayat Samiti, 
              Arvi, Taq. Arvi, Distt. Wardha.

3.            Additional Commissioner,
              Nagpur Division, Nagpur.                                                                                                             ..Respondents.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
              Shri M.V. Mohokar, Advocate for the petitioner. 
              Ms. Arti Singh Advocate h/f Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for respondent No.1.
              Shri A.A. Madiwale, A.G.P. for respondent No.3. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



                                                                 CORAM :  S.C. GUPTE, J.

                                                                 DATE  :     10.8.2017.



ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Taken up for hearing by

consent of counsel.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerns

promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. One of

2 wp2362.02

the grievances in the petition is that whereas the petitioner was denied

promotion on the ground that he did not complete the mandatory period of

service on the post of Junior Accounts Officer held by him, respondent No.2,

who was admittedly junior to him, was promoted to the post. When the matter

was carried in appeal by the petitioner herein before the Additional

Commissioner, Nagpur Division, the Additional Commissioner rejected the

petitioner's appeal on the ground that respondent No.2 had completed three

years on the post of Junior Accounts Officer held by him and was as such

eligible for promotion, whilst the petitioner did not complete three years as on

the date of the meeting of the Promotion Committee. In the same order and in

the same breath, the Additional Commissioner accepts the fact that in the

seniority list for considering promotion, the name of the petitioner was at serial

No.27 whereas the name of respondent No.2 was at serial No.32. If this is so,

one fails to understand how an officer junior to the petitioner completed three

years of service in a particular post, when the petitioner had not. The

Additional Commissioner has also observed in the impugned order that the

petitioner had not passed the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Finance and Account

Services Class-III Examination despite availing of the prescribed chances and

was not, therefore, eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Accounts

Officer. In his communication addressed to the Commissioner, Nagpur

Division, Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, however, has stated that the

petitioner was not considered eligible for promotion on the ground that as on

3 wp2362.02

the date of meeting of the promotion committee on 7 th October, 1997, the

petitioner did not complete three years of service on the post of Junior

Accounts Officer (the petitioner is stated to be completing three years on 9 th

November, 1997). There is no case that he was ineligible for any other reason

including failure to clear Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Finance and Account

Services Class-III Examination. Anyway in the light of these facts, the

impugned order of the Additional Commissioner deserves to be quashed and

set aside and the matter be remanded to him for fresh hearing in accordance

with law. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

3. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the

Additional Commissioner, duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of the Court,

and the Additional Commissioner shall dispose of his appeal within a period of

four months from the date of such production.

JUDGE

Tambaskar.