Bombay High Court
Bhimrao Pandharinath ... vs The Nagpur Municipal ... on 24 August, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, Urmila Sachin Phalke
2023:BHC-NAG:12649-DB
1 20.WP.454-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 454 OF 2022
( Shri Bhimrao Pandharinath Chandankhede
Vs.
The Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Thr. Its Commissioner, Nagpur &
Ors. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. S.S. Sanyal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Mehadia, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Ms. Tajwar Khan, AGP for the Respondent No.4/State.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
DATED : 24th AUGUST, 2023
Heard Mr. Sanyal, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Mehadia, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. Khan, learned AGP for the respondent
No.4/State.
2. The petition questions the denial of the grant of
promotion to the petitioner to the post of Divisional Fire
Officer (for short "DFO") with effect from 16.03.2021. It is
not in dispute, that the petitioner was appointed as DFO on
02.05.2022 and has subsequently been appointed as Chief
Fire Officer on 18.04.2023. The eligibility and entitlement
therefore is not in question.
3. Mr. Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner,
2 20.WP.454-2022.odt
contends that though the petitioner belongs to a reserved
category, however, the question of promotion even
considering the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition
No. 2797/2015, The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Shri
Vijay Ghogre and Ors., holding that there cannot be any
reservation in promotion and the fact, that there was no stay
granted in Special Leave Petition No. 28306/2017, would not
come in his way for being considered to be promoted to the
post of DFO on 16.03.2021.
4. He also contends, that the Government Resolution
dated 29.12.2017 (page 20), stood diluted by the subsequent
Government Resolution dated 18.02.2021 (page 21-B), which
permitted the filling up of all vacancies without considering
any reservations. He therefore submitted, that considering the
position there was no impediment to the petitioner being
considered for being appointed for the post of DFO with effect
from 16.03.2021.
5. Mr. Mehadia, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos. 1 to 3, places reliance upon the Government Resolution
dated 07.05.2021, to substantiate the decision of not
considering the petitioner.
6. It is material to note, that there were only two
posts of DFO and there were only two candidates, one of
which is the petitioner. Even considering the plea, that there
could not have been any reservation in promotion, still the
petitioner could very well have been considered for the post
of DFO on 16.03.2021 itself. There does not appear to be any
reason why this has not been so done. The only reason, which
3 20.WP.454-2022.odt
is spelt out from the record and submission, is the decision of
this Court in holding that there would be no reservation in
promotion.
7. In that view of the matter, the petition is partly
allowed and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to
consider the claim of the petitioner for being promoted as a
DFO with effect from 16.03.2021, in case on that date he was
otherwise eligible. The decision shall be done expeditiously.
8. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed
of accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
SD. Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/08/2023 17:53:24
