Kamlakar S/O Balaji Sripad vs The Maharashtra Administrative ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4353 Bom

                                                        1                   J-WP-6130-11.odt

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

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 6130/2011

 Kamlakar s/o Balaji Sripad,
 Aged about : 59 years,
 Police Inspector (since retired),
 Plot No.10, Ambika Nagar 
 (Mata Kacheri Layout),
 Post Ayodhya Nagar,
 Nagpur - 440024.                                                 ..... PETITIONER

                                 ...V E R S U S...

 1. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
    Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.

 2. The State of Maharashtra,
    through the Secretary,
    Home Department,
    Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

 3. The Director General of Police,
    Police Headquarter Kulaba,
    Bhagatsingh Marg,
    Mumbai - 400 001.

 4. The Superintendent of Police
    (Railway), Ajni Headquarters,
    Ajni, Nagpur.                                                 ... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri S. K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Shri I. J. Damle, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CORAM:-    
                                             SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK &
                                                 ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATED :-

11/07/2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)

2 J-WP-6130-11.odt

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 14 th October, 2011

dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner was working as a Police Sub-Inspector in the

year 1992 when according to him without promoting him to the post of

Assistant Police Inspector, Shri Thakur, who was junior to him was

granted promotion on 21/05/1993. According to the petitioner, since

his Confidential Reports for five years were not adverse, the petitioner

also ought to have been promoted on the post of Assistant Police

Inspector w.e.f. 24/12/1992. The petitioner filed original application

seeking deemed date of his promotion w.e.f. 24/12/1992 as, before he

filed the original application in the year 2000, he was promoted in the

year 1996. During the pendency of the original application, the case of

the petitioner for grant of deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 24/12/1992

was considered by constituting a Departmental Promotion Committee.

The Departmental Promotion Committee found that the petitioner was

not fit for promotion. The subsequent development was brought by the

respondents on record before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal

and on a consideration of the decision of the Departmental Promotion

Committee of the year 2005 that the petitioner cannot be granted

deemed date of promotion from 1992 as he was not fit for promotion,

the Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner.

3 J-WP-6130-11.odt

Shri Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the years 1986 - 1987

to 1991 - 1992 do not show that any adverse entries were made against

the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was only granted

Grades in the Confidential Reports. It is stated that the constitution of

the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 2005 to consider

the case of the petitioner for promotion w.e.f. 1992 by circulation of the

proceedings was a farce, as the process was initiated a few days before

the decision was taken.

Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent has supported the order of the Tribunal. It

is submitted that once again the claim of the petitioner for grant of

deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 24/12/1992 was considered during

the pendency of the original application and it was found that the

petitioner was unfit for promotion. It is submitted that the Tribunal

rightly held that since the Departmental Promotion Committee had

found that the petitioner was unfit for promotion, the petitioner was not

entitled to any relief.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the impugned order as also the documents annexed to the

4 J-WP-6130-11.odt

writ petition, it appears that there is no scope for interference with the

impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Though the case of

the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion

Committee in the year 1992, again the same exercise was made by the

constituting the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 2005

to re-consider whether the petitioner was fit for promotion in the year

1992. All the four members of the Departmental Promotion Committee

have found that the petitioner was 'unfit' for promotion in the year

1992. The Grades received by the petitioner are 'B' and 'C'. We find that

the performance of the petitioner must not have been good and

therefore the members of the Departmental Promotion Committee

unanimously found that the petitioner was not fit for promotion. It

would not be for the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal or this Court

to sit in appeal over the decision of the Departmental Promotion

Committee. We do not find any error of the order of the Tribunal in

dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner.

Since the order of the Tribunal is just and proper, the writ

petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

                      JUDGE                                      JUDGE

 Choulwar