Bombay High Court
Sunil Shankar Jadhav vs The Thane Municipal Corporation ... on 17 March, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, R. I. Chagla
9-WP-467-21.doc
Sharayu Khot.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 467 OF 2021
Sunil Shankar Jadhav ...Petitioner
Versus
The Thane Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents
----------
Mr. Pramod Gokul Kothane for the Petitioner.
Mr. Chirag J. Shah a/w Mr. Raj Adhia for the Respondent Nos. 1
to 4.
----------
CORAM : K.K. TATED &
R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 17 March 2021
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the
Sharayu
Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking direction against
P. Khot
Digitally
the Respondents to promote him as Deputy Engineer in their
signed by
Sharayu P.
Khot
establishment.
Date:
2021.03.17
15:03:54
+0530
3. Learned Counsel Mr. Kothane for the Petitioner
9-WP-467-21.doc
submits that he also fled Representation dated 13th July 2019
which is pending for hearing and fnal disposal on its own
merits. He submits that he requires some time to take
instructions from his client that whether the Petitioner is
ready and willing to give the necessary documents to the
Respondents so that they can decide the Representation.
4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel Mr. Shah
appearing on behalf of the Respondents-Corporation submits
that the Petitioner has no right to ask for promotion. He
submits that our High Court in the matter of Madhukar M.
Kamble & Anr. and The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai & Ors.1 held that there is no question of any right to
ask for the promotion. In support of his submissions, he relies
on paragraph 16 of the said judgment, which reads thus :-
"16. In service jurisprudence, it is settled legal principle
that no employee can claim right to promotion. He has
only right to be considered for promotion. In the
present case, the Departmental Promotion Committee
of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation while
recommending promotion for Shri Shintre did not
1 Writ Petition (L) No. 304 of 2010 by judgment dated 6th April 2010
9-WP-467-21.doc
ignore Section 54-A of the Act and the Rules made
thereunder. The petitioners cannot claim wooden
equality with respondent No.5Shri Shintre because he
was never appointed in the category of Deputy
Municipal Commissioners. Shri A.T. Shintre was from
the category of Chief Engineers (Civil) with
educational qualifcations B.E. (Civil). He belonged to
another category of Chief Engineers with separate
seniority list. His appointment and promotion as the
Director (ES & P) was based upon his qualifcation
and experience in specialised feld of engineering
services & projects. In view of Section 54-A of the Act
and the Rules framed thereunder, it cannot be said
that the MCGM has over-looked the seniority of the
petitioners because since Shri Shintre was not at all in
the category of Deputy Municipal Commissioners. The
post of the Director required specialised experience in
the engineering feld, specifc job requirements and
qualifcations which the municipal administration was
bound to assess before promoting a competent,
suitable and ft person to the higher post of Director.
Therefore, the petitioners cannot assail the MCGM's
resolution and the offce order pursuant to which Shri
Shintre was, in our opinion, justifably promoted. We
do not fnd any violation of Section 54-A of the Act and
the Rules made thereunder, as also violation of any
constitutional provisions relied upon."
9-WP-467-21.doc
5. In any case, the learned Advocate for Petitioner
requires some time to take instructions from his client whether
he is going to fle a fresh representation for the same cause of
action to the Respondent.
6. Hence, at his request, matter to appear on board on
19th March 2021.
[R.I. CHAGLA J.] [K.K. TATED, J.]
