Laxman Sakharamji Sarkate vs The State Of Mah & 5 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 4148 Bom

                                                                          wp.1247.04

                                          1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                          WRIT PETITION No. 1247/2004 

*       Laxman  s/o Sakharamji Sarkate 
        Aged about 64 years, occu: Retd. Govt. Servant
        from the Forest Department 
        R/o Mahatma  Fule Nagar, 
        Near Rashtriya School
        Umari (Big),  Akola, Dist. Akola.                       ..PETITIONER.

                                     VERSUS

1)      The State of Maharashtra 
        Through  Secretary
        Forest Department 
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 

2)      The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest 
        M.S. Seminary Hills, Nagpur. 

3)      The  Divisional Forest Officer 
        Akola,  District Akola.

4)      Conservator of Forest, 
        Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal. 

5)      Divisional Manager, 
        Forest Development Corporation 
        Pendigundam Forest 
        Project Division, Alapalli 
        Dist. Gadchiroli.

6)      The Regional Manager, 
        Forest Development Corporation 
        Chandrapur Dist.Chandrapur.                         ..RESPONDENTS
                                                                         . 




     ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017                    ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:11:49 :::
                                                                                                    wp.1247.04

                                                        2



...................................................................................................................
          Mr. S.K. Pardhy, Advocate for the petitioner 
          Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, Assistant Government Pleader for 
          respondent no.1
          Rest of the respondents  served
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                            CORAM:R.K. DESHPANDE &
                                                                     MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 06 th July, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.K.DESHPANDE, J.)

Challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order

dated 14th February, 2003 delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative

Tribunal in Original Application No.75/1994. The claim of the petitioner

for promotion from the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest to the post

of Divisional Forest Officer, Class I, with effect from 3.8.1983 has been

denied. The Tribunal has partly allowed the Application and directed the

promotion of the petitioner with effect from 22.4.1990 along with all

consequential benefits.

2. Shri Pardhy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

invited our attention to the communication dated 23.11.1983 by which

the confidential reports pertaining to the period from 1.4.1980 to

31.3.1981 and 14.5.1982 to 31.3.1983 were communicated. He submits

wp.1247.04

that consideration for promotion took place on 3.8.1983 when these

remarks were not communicated to him. He further invites our attention

to the communication dated 21.5.1986 by which the annual confidential

reports of the petitioner for the year 1983-84 were communicated. He

submits that even on the date of second consideration on 5.11.1984, the

adverse remarks for the year 1983-84 were not communicated to the

petitioner.

3. We have gone through the decision rendered by the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which had called the minutes of

the Departmental Promotion Committee. It records the finding that the

Departmental Promotion Committee has rightly adjudged the petitioner

to be 'unfit' for promotion as Divisional Forest Officer on 3.8.1983,

5.11.1984, 6.11.1990, 21.8.1991 and 21.1.1993. The Tribunal having

noticed of the notings in the relevant files of the Departmental

Promotion Committee, we cannot entertain any doubt in respect of these

uncommunicated remarks for the period 1.4.1980 to 3.3.1981 and

14.5.1982 to 31.3.1983 indicating that the performance of the petitioner

was average. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out

any decision, either of this Court or of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laying

wp.1247.04

down the law that uncommunicated average remarks in the annual

confidential reports cannot be acted upon to consider the fitness of a

candidate. We do not find any merit in such a challenge. Coming to the

adverse remarks for the year 1983-84 communicated to the petitioner on

21.5.1986, we find that even if these remarks are ignored, the earlier

average performance of the petitioner was before the Departmental

Promotion Committee and neither the Tribunal nor this Court can sit in

appeal over the satisfaction of the Committee about the fitness of the

petitioner for promotion.

4. The petitioner has retired from service and has got all the

benefits in terms of the decision of the Tribunal. We do not find any

reason to interfere in the impugned order. The Writ Petition is dismissed,

with no order as to costs.

                           JUDGE                       JUDGE


sahare