[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bipin Vasant Shinde And Ors vs Pune Municipal Corporation Thr ... on 3 February, 2026
Author: R. I. Chagla
Bench: R. I. Chagla
Digitally signed
2026:BHC-AS:5536-DB
by MULEY
MULEY SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO
PRAVINRAO Date:
2026.02.03
18:17:11 +0530 1 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 17202 OF 2025
1. Bipin Vasant Shinde
Age-54 years, Occ. Service,
Residing at Plot No.36,
Shivparsad Housing Society,
Sinhgad Road, Pune 411030
2. Rohidas Nivrutti Gavhane
Age-56 years, Occ. Service,
Residing at 501, Guruprasad
Apartment, Opp. Joshi Sweets,
Bharatkunj Colony No.1, Erandwane,
Pune 411004
3. Mukund Chintaman Barve
Age- 56 years, Occ. Service,
Residing at Survey No.9/2, B801,
Soham Riviria,Wadgaon Budruk,
Sinhgad Road Pune - 411051
4. Ajay Dattatraya Wayse
Age- 54 years, Occ. Service,
Residing at Priyadarshan Apartment,
Hadapsar, Gadital, Pune 411028 ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Pune Municipal Corporation
through Municipal Commissioner
Shivajinagar, Pune 411005
2. Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)
through Head of DPC
Municipal Commissioner
Pune Municipal Corporation
Shivajinagar, Pune 411005
3. Abhijeet Arun Ambekar
Age - 54 years, Occ. Service,
Shubham/Mayur 1/48
::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2026 20:51:55 :::
2 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
Having address at Shivaji Nagar
Pune 411005
4. Pravin Gajanan Shende
Age - 53 years, Occ. Service,
Having address at Shivaji Nagar
Pune 411005
5. Bhausaheb Shrirang Shelar,
Age - 55 years, Occ. Service,
Having address at Shivaji Nagar
Pune 411005
6. Rajendra Marutrao Jadhav,
Age - 53 years, Occ. Service,
Having address at Shivaji Nagar
Pune 411005 ...Respondents
-----------------
Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Bhushan G. Deshmukh, Mr.
Aryan M. Deshmukh, Mr. Aniket Kanawade, Mr. Irvin D'zouza i/b Sugandh
B. Deshmukh for Petitioner.
Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w Mr. Gourav Shahane & Mr. Shreyas R. Zarkar for
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 - PMC.
Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Pratik Deshmukh for Respondent
Nos. 3 to 6.
-----------------
CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 19 JANUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 03 FEBRUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT:
- (PER ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.)
Prologue :-
1. This is a Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking for the following substantive reliefs:-
"[A] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ
mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
3 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
writ or direction thereby be pleased to quash and set aside the
Impugned Order passed by the Respondent no. 2,
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) of the Respondent
- Corporation for the post of Superintending Engineer dated
11.12.2025 (EXHIBIT- O) and be pleased to direct not to make
any promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer.
[B] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ
mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ or direction thereby be pleased to quash and set aside the
entire the promotion process conducted by the Respondent
no. 1 and 2 for the post of the Superintending Engineer of the
Respondent - Corporation and all the decisions taken by the
Respondent Corporation in the promotion process conducted
by the Respondent no. 1 and 2 for the post of the
Superintending Engineer.
[C] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ
mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ direction and order direct the Respondents to
call for the confidential report of the Petitioner herein and to
consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to
the post of Superintending Engineer of the Pune Municipal
Corporation and not to exclude the case of the Petitioner from
being considered for the promotion to the post of
Superintending Engineer for the current year 2025-2026.
[D] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ
mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ direction and order thereby declared that the
alleged selection list of Executive Engineers of the Respondent
Corporation is non est and illegal and thereby quashing and
setting aside the alleged unpublished probable selection list
and the General Body Resolution No.206 dated 19.09.2025
passed thereby the alleged selection list was prepared by the
Respondent No.1 for promotion to the post of Superintending
Engineer (EXHIBIT- S)."
2. Rule. With the consent of parties the Rule is made returnable
forthwith.
3. This is another contest in service jurisprudence where we are called
upon to adjudicate the validity and legality of the promotion process,
4 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
culminating in issuance of a final seniority list. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2
have sought to refrain from giving effect to the same, on account of
compelling reasons/circumstances. The proceedings revolve around
promotions of the Petitioners who are working with the Pune Municipal
Corporation i.e. Respondent No.1 to the post of Superintending Engineer
(Civil).
4. The Petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the order dated 11
December 2025, passed by Respondent No.2 i.e. Departmental Promotion
Committee, Pune Municipal Corporation ("Impugned Order" for short).
Consequently, the Petitioners have been denied promotion to the post of
Superintending Engineer (Civil). The fulcrum of the Petitioners' contention
is that the Impugned Order is cryptic, non-reasoned, non-speaking,
inasmuch as it is contrary to the specific mandate and directions issued by a
coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 11 November 2025, in
Writ Petition No.12046 of 2025 filed by Petitioner No.4 herein and another.
5. The Petitioners are seeking implementation of the final seniority list
dated 11 September 2024 which entitles them to such promotion. On the
other hand, the Respondents' case in a nutshell is that there is a
mistake/error which has crept in the publication of the final seniority list
dated 11 September 2024. This is inasmuch as the promotions of the
Petitioners to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) ought to be
considered in accordance with their seniority as on 25 May 2004, as
5 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
decided by the DPC in the proceedings held on 2 September 2025.
Accordingly, the date of initial entry into service/joining of the Petitioners in
service of Respondent No.1-PMC ought to be the benchmark for
promotions. In view thereof, the Respondents contend that the seniority list
of 11 September 2024 though final, ought not to be implemented.
Factual Matrix:-
6. The Petitioners are graduate engineers (Civil) presently employed as
Executive Engineers with the Respondent No.1-Pune Municipal Corporation
("PMC" for short).
7. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 joined the Respondent No. 1-PMC on 4
September 1996, 3 May 1997, 3 May 1997, and 9 November 1998
respectively, as Junior Engineers. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 belong to the Open
Category whereas Petitioner No.4 is from the Nomadic Tribe (NT-C)
category.
8. The Petitioners were initially appointed in the pay scale of Sub-
Engineer which is the next promotional post of Junior Engineer. The
recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer was initially done from diploma
holders and degree holders separately with different pay scales.
9. The Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are private Respondents who were
initially appointed as Junior Engineers from Diploma category.
10. As per the previous Service Rules of Respondent No.1-PMC, prior to
2014, separate seniority lists of Engineers from degree and diploma holder
6 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
categories were maintained.
11. The State of Maharashtra on 25 May 2004 provided reservation in
promotion by Government Resolution ("GR" for short) in light of
Maharashtra State Public Services (Reservation for Schedule Castes,
Schedule Tribes, De Notified Tribes) (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes,
Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2001.
12. The above Act was challenged before the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, which on such plea, was pleased to declare the said Reservation
Act and GR dated 25 May 2004 as invalid.
13. Pursuant to the above, Writ Petition No.2797 of 2015 (The State of
Maharashtra & Anr vs Shri Vijay Ghogre & Ors.) was preferred before this
Court against the impugned judgment of Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal. The said Writ Petition resulted in a split verdict of this Court
where one of the Judges upheld the validity of the said Reservation Act and
the other set aside the same on being illegal and invalid.
14. Further to the above, the proceedings were referred to a third Judge
who concurred with the view taken by His Lordship Justice A. A. Sayed,
who struck down the GR dated 25 May 2004. The learned third Judge
passed his order dated 25 July 2017 upholding the decision of Justice A. A.
Sayed. Thereafter, the proceedings were referred back to the Bench which
passed the initial judgment and order. By a majority order dated 4 August
2017 in Writ Petition No.2797 of 2015 and other Petitions (The State of
7 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
Maharashtra & Anr vs Shri Vijay Ghogre & Ors.) , the GR dated 25 May
2004 was struck down, with consequential directions to the State
Government to take necessary corrective steps.
15. The order and judgment of 4 August 2017 of this Court, was carried
by way of Special Leave Petition (SLP) No.28306 of 2017 (The State of
Maharashtra & Anr vs Shri Vijay Ghogre & Ors.) before the Supreme Court,
where the proceedings are pending without any stay on the judgment of
this Court dated 4 August 2017 (supra). In view thereof, the G.R. dated 25
May 2004 continued to be invalid and illegal.
16. In the meantime, the Respondent No.1-PMC came out with Pune
Municipal Corporation Service Rules, 2014 ("2014 Service Rules" for short).
Till 2014, there was a clear distinction for promotion to the post of
Executive Engineer, on the basis of Degree and Diploma holders. However,
as per the 2014 Service Rules, the eligibility criteria for the post of
Executive Engineer was changed to Degree holders who were appointed
through promotion (75%) and nomination (25%) to the cadre of Deputy
Engineer, having a minimum of 3 years of experience at that post. For the
promotional post of Superintending Engineer, the eligibility criteria
specified was Degree in Bachelorette of Engineering (Civil) coupled with
three years experience as Executive Engineer.
17. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were duly promoted to the post of
Executive Engineer (Civil) pursuant to the 2014 Service Rules on 11 March
8 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
2019, 3 March 2020, 23 October 2020 and 15 March 2016 respectively. The
private Respondent Nos.3 to 6 were promoted to the post of Executive
Engineer (Civil) on 3 March 2020, 21 December 2021, 21 December 2021
and 21 December 2021 respectively.
18. The General Administration Department of State of Maharashtra
issued G.R. dated 1 August 2019. The said G.R. mainly stipulated that for
the post on which the promotion is to be made, the final seniority list of the
immediately preceding year in which the selection is held, shall be
considered.
19. The above was followed by an another G.R. dated 7 May 2021. By
the said GR the Respondent-State wanted to restore the seniority of those
reserved category candidates who availed the promotion benefits on such
basis, dating back to 25 May 2004. This was because the GR dated 25 May
2004 was struck down, as noted above and the proceedings in this regard
are pending before the Supreme Court.
20. The State of Maharashtra issued letters dated 16 February 2019 and
21 February 2020 to the queries sought by Respondent No.1-PMC. These
letters were issued to clarify the service seniority of Junior Engineers who
had joined the service from the category of diploma holders and later, for
the purpose of promotion to the post of Sub-Engineer, acquired a degree
while in service. It was clarified that the Government had issued guidance
to the effect that the period of service prior to acquiring degree qualification
9 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
i.e. the period from date of confirmation as Junior Engineer shall be
considered as qualifying service seniority for promotion to the post of Sub
Engineer. The same yardstick should apply to the post of Executive
Engineer.
21. The Respondent No.2-DPC of PMC, issued a final seniority list dated
11 September 2024. According to the said published list, the Petitioner
Nos.1 to 4 whose names are at Sr. Nos. 21, 24, 26 and 14 respectively, are
stated to be senior vis-a-vis the private Respondent Nos.4 to 6, being at Sr.
Nos. 28, 29 and 27 respectively.
22. Pursuant to the above, the DPC was convened and on 2 September
2025, the said DPC decided that the promotion to the post of
Superintending Engineer is to be determined on the basis of seniority as on
25 May 2004. Consequently, the private Respondent Nos.3 to 6 were
considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) as
against the Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 on the ground of they being senior as per
their date of joining / length of service.
23. The Respondent No.2-DPC issued a proposed draft selection list
signed by the members of the DPC dated 2 September 2025. This,
according to the Respondents, was issued to correct the mistakes which had
crept in the final seniority list dated 11 September 2024, inasmuch as the
seniority was not considered with effect from 25 May 2004 in the final
seniority list.
10 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
24. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 having come to know that they are not
promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) as against the
private Respondent Nos.3 to 6, having been superseded, preferred Writ
Petition Nos.12046 and 12277 of 2025 before this Court.
25. A coordinate Bench of this Court on 24 September 2025 inter alia
directed that the Respondent No.1-PMC shall not initiate the promotional
process to the post on which the Petitioners are seeking a right to be
considered without leave of this Court.
26. By an order dated 11 November 2025 in Writ Petition No.12046 of
2025 filed by the Petitioner No.4 herein and another, this Court directed the
DPC to consider the representation of each of the Petitioners, deal with
every issue raised and pass a reasoned order. It was clarified that if an
adverse order was passed, the same would not be implemented for a period
of two weeks thereafter.
27. The Respondent No.2-DPC, on 11 December 2025 passed the
Impugned Order confirming its earlier decision dated 2 September 2025.
The effect being that the Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were denied promotion to the
post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) as against the private Respondent
Nos.3 to 6. The basis of such decision being that the promotion ought to be
based on seniority to be reckoned as on 25 May 2004, considering the date
of joining/initial entry into service. There are two emails on record dated
11 December 2025 sent by the Deputy Commissioner of PMC to the
11 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
Petitioners, attaching a file giving a tabular point wise reply to the
representation of the Petitioner Nos.1 to 4.
28. In the above facts and circumstances, the Petitioner Nos.1 to 4
aggrieved by the Impugned Order and the promotional process of the
Respondent No.1-PMC, have approached this Court by way of the present
Petition seeking to implement the Final Seniority List dated 11 September
2024.
29. It is pertinent to mention that pursuant to the filing of the Petition
and during its pendency, the Respondent No.2 has issued a draft seniority
list as on 1 January 2026, dated 7 January 2026 even as per which the
Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are senior to the private Respondent Nos.4 to 6.
Rival contentions
Submissions of the Petitioners:-
30. Mr. Anturkar, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners would at the
outset submit that the Impugned Order is in clear violation of the earlier
order of this Court dated 11 November 2025, passed in Writ Petition
No.12046 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.12277 of 2025. So also, the entire
promotion process initiated by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is legally flawed
and cannot be given effect to.
31. Mr. Anturkar would contend that from a bare perusal of the
Impugned Order, it is evident that the Respondent No.2-DPC has passed a
two line order without considering the issues raised by the Petitioners. Nor
12 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
there are any reasons set out therein. Therefore, the Impugned Order being
in violation to the earlier order of this Court dated 11 November 2025,
ought to be quashed and set aside.
32. Mr. Anturkar would next submit that the final seniority list of
Executive Engineer, i.e. feeder cadre for the post of Superintending
Engineer indicates that the Petitioners are senior. Accordingly, they should
have been considered for promotion to such post of Superintending
Engineer, for which the feeder post is that of Executive Engineer.
33. Mr. Anturkar has submitted that the final seniority list of Executive
Engineers was prepared by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 11 September
2024. Such seniority list is not challenged and thus is final as on date.
Further, any promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer after 11
September 2024, therefore, ought to have been made as per the final
seniority list of Executive Engineer which is the feeder cadre for the post of
Superintending Engineer.
34. Mr. Anturkar would submit that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2
prepared one unpublished, probable/proposed selection list on 2 September
2025 (page 276 of the Petition) and decided to make promotions to the
post of Superintending Engineer as per the said unpublished
probable/proposed selection list. Such list was never published nor
objections were invited in respect thereof.
35. Mr. Anturkar would submit that the above list was prepared on the
13 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
basis of G.R. dated 7 May 2021 and as per clarification given by two letters
from the State Government dated 16 February 2019 and 21 February 2020.
So far as the G.R. dated 7 May 2021 is concerned, the Petitioners submit
that the final seniority list dated 11 September 2024 was also prepared only
after considering the G.R. dated 7 May 2021. The said G.R. pertains to
promotions made from 25 May 2004 onwards from the backward class
candidates which would apply until the order dated 4 August 2017 was
passed by this Court (supra).
36. Mr. Anturkar would urge that a conjoint reading of the order dated 4
August 2017 passed by this Court read with the G.R. dated 7 May 2021
would make it clear that both of them would be applicable in respect of
promotions given to persons belonging to the backward classes. Admittedly,
the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 belong to the open category and therefore they
were not to be promoted from the reserved category. For such reason, the
reliance of the Respondents on the G.R. dated 7 May 2021 is illegal and
misplaced, as far as Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are concerned who, admittedly
belong to Open category.
37. Mr. Anturkar would submit that as far as Petitioner No.4 is
concerned, after the order passed by this Court on 4 August 2017 (supra)
the final seniority list was prepared on 11 September 2024. At the time of
preparation of the said list, the G.R. dated 7 May 2021 was duly considered.
Consequently, the Petitioner No.4 was shown as senior to Respondent Nos.3
14 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
to 6.
38. Mr. Anturkar would submit that the reliance placed by the
Respondents on the Government letters dated 16 February 2019 and 21
February 2021, is completely misconstrued. In this context, he has placed
reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra
& Ors. Vs. State of Orissa 1. The Supreme Court has observed that the letters
issued by the Government departments being merely in the nature of
opinion of the department, cannot be conferred with the status of executive
instruction.
39. Mr. Anturkar would contend that the applicable service rules in the
given case would be 2014 Service Rules. He would more specifically rely on
clause 4 of the said Rules along with G.R. dated 1 August 2019 in clause
5.2.1. which clearly stipulates that for the purposes of promotion, the
seniority of the feeder cadre is to be considered. The final seniority list of
the earlier year is also required to be taken into consideration. In the
present case, the feeder cadre for the promotional post of Superintending
Engineer is that of Executive Engineer and relevant date for the seniority of
the earlier year is 1 January 2024. Hence, in light of G.R. dated 1 August
2019 read with the 2014 Service Rules, the reliance placed by the
Respondents on their letters issued by the Government of Maharashtra
dated 16 February 2019 and 21 February 2020, is misconstrued and
1. (2010) 12 SCC 471.
15 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
unwarranted.
40. According to Mr. Anturkar, the Petitioners are degree holders and
their appointments were made from the degree stream. Separate seniority
list was maintained in respect of degree and diploma holders until the year
2014. It is in the year 2014 that the Service Rules of 2014 came into force.
In view thereof, the appointment of the Petitioners as Junior Engineers and
that of private Respondent is not equivalent. This is because when the
Petitioners were initially appointed in the post of Junior Engineer, being
degree qualified, they were given the time and pay scale of the next post i.e.
Sub Divisional Engineer, since 1996. They were always treated as senior to
the private Respondents from their appointment dates.
41. In fact, the Petitioners would urge that a bare perusal of the
unpublished/proposed select list dated 2 September 2025 relied on by the
Respondents would as it stood clearly indicates that the Petitioners were
consistently senior and they were given promotion to the post of Sub-
Engineer, Deputy Engineer and Executive Engineer, earlier than the private
Respondents.
42. Mr. Anturkar would contend that once the seniority list has been
fixed and remains in existence for a period of three to four years it is not
open to the Respondents to challenge the same. He would rely on the
Supreme Court's decision in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra). He would
urge that admittedly, in the present case the seniority of the Petitioners was
16 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
in existence for more than 20 years, which cannot be disturbed under the
guise of G.R. dated 7 May 2021. Such final seniority list cannot be
disturbed on a purported benevolent plea of the Respondents that they
wanted to correct their mistake and hence the final seniority list of 11
September 2024 ought not to be implemented.
43. Mr. Anturkar would be at pains to submit that even going by the
Respondents' proposed select list dated 2 September 2025, it would be clear
that the Petitioners are senior to the private Respondents even when one
considers their promotion as Sub Engineer, Deputy Engineer and Executive
Engineer respectively. All the Petitioners are appointed on their posts as
holders of bachelor of engineering degree, which, the private Respondents
obtained much after the appointment of all the said Petitioners.
44. It is Mr. Anturkar's submission that Respondents have failed to show
any provision of law requiring that the date of initial appointment is to be
considered in the given facts and circumstances. On the contrary, the
Petitioners have placed specific reliance on the G.R. dated 1 August 2019
and the 2014 Service Rules. A conjoint reading of these make it clear that
the Respondent No.1-PMC ought to have considered the seniority in the
feeder cadre i.e. Executive Engineer as against the date of initial
appointment of Junior Engineer, for the promotional post of Superintending
Engineer.
45. Mr. Anturkar has urged that a desperate attempt was made by
17 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
Respondent No.1-PMC in placing reliance on the response to the Petitioners'
representation, which was circulated to the Petitioners vide emails dated 11
December 2025, as if the same form a part of the Impugned Order. To the
contrary, the Petitioners have specifically averred in the Petition that the
Impugned Order was sent separately, followed by a separate mail sent to
the Petitioners. This document was signed only by the Deputy
Commissioner, General Administration Department, PMC and the
Administrative Officer of the Establishment Department. It was not signed
by all the members of the DPC, making it evident that the said document
was a separate document and not a part of the Impugned Order. It is
contended that the Deputy Commissioner Administration of PMC namely
Vijay Kumar Thorat was a part of the DPC and he himself represented the
Respondent No.1-PMC against Petitioner Nos.1 to 4. In view thereof, the
said member who signed the Impugned Order cannot be a judge of his own
cause and on such ground also the Impugned Order is unsustainable.
46. Mr. Anturkar, in light of the submissions advanced would strenuously
urge that the Petitioners be considered for promotion to the post of
Superintending Engineer as per the final seniority list dated 11 September
2024. Therefore, the entire promotion process held by the DPC, in
accordance with the proposed select list dated 2 September 2025, be
quashed and set aside. Accordingly, he would urge that the Petition be
allowed.
18 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:-
47. Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2-
PMC has vehemently opposed the Petition and refuted the arguments
advanced on behalf of the Petitioners. He has drawn the Court's attention to
the Affidavit-In-Reply dated 12 January 2026 filed by one Vijaykumar
Thorat, Deputy Commissioner, General Administration Department, in
support of his submissions.
48. Mr. Kulkarni contends that the proceedings of hearing dated 13
November 2025 were noted by the Respondent No.2-DPC with assistance of
Administrative Officer and Establishment Officer of Respondent No.1- PMC.
The Respondent No.2-DPC recorded its finding in a tabular form which
includes the points raised by the candidates and the findings of DPC
thereof. The Impugned Order also includes the noting in the table annexed
by the Petitioners (at Page 266 of Writ Petition). Both these documents
were sent by the computer clerk of Establishment Department of
Respondent No.1-PMC to all Petitioners by email on 11 December 2025 at
12:57 PM. However, when it was realised that the final typed order was yet
to be signed by Vitthal Chavan, the Chief auditor of Respondent No.1-PMC
who was not available on account of official work before 12:57 PM, the
same order was sent after obtaining his signature at 6:16 PM on the same
day.
49. According to Mr. Kulkarni, the emails addressed to the Petitioners
19 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
would indicate that two pdf files were attached to the email i.e. (i) Yadav
and others Sunavanifinal.pdf and (ii) Sunavani exe to SE final.pdf. Second
email which was sent to the Petitioners at 6:16 PM was signed by all DPC
members. Thus, the contentions of the Petitioners that the Impugned Order
is in violation of the earlier orders passed by this Court is incorrect and
misplaced.
50. Mr. Kulkarni would submit that the contentions raised by the
Petitioners to the effect that promotion to be made as per seniority list
dated 11 September 2024 has been duly addressed by the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2, more particularly, in paragraph 14 and 15 of the Affidavit-in-
Reply filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Further, Mr. Kulkarni
would contend that the private Respondents were appointed/joined service
much prior to the Petitioners as is clear from their date of initial
appointment/joining.
51. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in fact have considered that there has
been a mistake which has occurred in the past in granting promotion on the
basis of acquisition of promotion of bachelor of engineering degree,
irrespective of work experience. This has been subsequently rectified by the
Respondent No. 1-PMC after getting guidance from the state government.
In fact, in all departments of the Respondent No.1-PMC, when the 2014
Service Rules were implemented, the seniority lists have undergone the
change. This is with a view to rectify the error that has taken place in the
20 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
promotion process initiated by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, which, if not
done, would perpetuate the illegality in the seniority as Mr. Kulkarni would
strenuously urge.
52. Mr. Kulkarni, referring to paragraph 16 of the Affidavit-In-Reply of
the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, would contend that without disturbing the
past benefits given on account of incorrect seniority list to the Petitioners as
well as alike, the DPC has recommended the names of Respondent Nos. 3 to
6 for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on the basis of their
actual date of appointment/seniority and eligibility. Thus, it is an admitted
fact that on account of error on the part of Respondent No.1-PMC, the
Petitioners were granted promotions.
53. He would then refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
case of Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Anr v/s TK Surya
Narayan and others2 in paragraph 8 of the said judgment which, according
to the Respondents, applies to the given facts in its totality. The Supreme
Court in the said decision held that an employee cannot be entitled to take
accelerated promotions on the basis of educational qualification consequent
upon the initial fitment in a particular category. Further, by introduction of
service rules, appropriate remedial measures may be taken in this regard.
54. Mr. Kulkarni, then submits that the decision referred to by the
Petitioners through Mr. Anturkar is distinguishable on facts. The facts in
2. (1997) 6 SCC 766
21 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors. (supra) are distinct from the given facts.
Paragraph 3 of the said judgement clearly states that the eligibility for
promotion of SIs (g) and SIs (st) were different for both the wings. That is
not the case in the present Petition. Admittedly, as stated in the letters dated
16 February 2019 and 21 February 2020, annexed to the Affidavit-In-Reply
filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (at pages 327 to 330 of the Writ
Petition), the Respondent No.1- PMC has sought guidance from the Urban
Development Department being the parent authority of all Municipal
Corporations of the State. Mr. Kulkarni would urge that such course is
permissible as also observed by the Supreme Court in the said judgment.
55. According to Mr Kulkarni, in the present facts, admittedly, the 2014
Service Rules are in force and the same would prevail over any other
Government Resolution or Circular. Rule 15 of the 2014 Service Rules
clearly provides that in the event of any doubt regarding the interpretation
of any provisions in these rules, the matter shall be referred to the
government and the decision of the government in such case shall be final.
Mr. Kulkarni would accordingly contend that the Respondent No.1-PMC
could not be faulted, when it sought to take advice from the State as is
evident from the letters dated 16 February 2019 and 21 February 2020
annexed to the Affidavit-In-Reply filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2
(Supra).
56. Mr. Kulkarni submits that the reliance placed by the Respondents on
22 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
the GR dated 1 August 2019 is for the purpose of dealing with the objection
of the Petitioners regarding the constitution of DPC, more particularly on
the ground that one of the members of the said DPC, represented the
backward classes. Even otherwise, it is not a disputed fact that in normal
circumstances, the seniority list of immediate subordinate post is relevant
for the purpose of promotions.
57. Mr. Kulkarni further submits that we need not go to the GR dated 1
August 2019, because the 2014 Service Rules also provides clarity on this.
Therefore, seniority and eligibility are common factors in the GR dated 1
August 2019 and the 2014 Service Rules. However, according to Mr.
Kulkarni, the 2014 Service Rules will prevail over the GR dated 1 August
2019, as per the settled position of law reiterated by the Supreme Court in
the case of Ashok Ram Parhad & others. v/s State of Maharashtra and
others3. Thus, in view of rule 15 of the 2014 Service Rules there is nothing
wrong, much less illegal in so far as the guidance sought by the Respondent
No.1-PMC from the government was concerned.
58. Mr. Kulkarni would further submit that in terms of the letters dated
16 February 2019 and 21 February 2020 (Supra), the Respondent No.1-PMC
has acted upon the guidance provided by the State, by preparing the draft
selection list, considering the original date of joining and the eligibility of
all candidates at the relevant time when they were granted promotions.
3. Civil Appeal No. 822 of 2023, decided on 15 March 2023.
23 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
This eligibility was divided into parts. First, is the educational qualification
and the second is work experience. The candidates who fulfilled such
criteria were considered for promotion based on their original date of
appointment/joining. While doing so, the PMC has cautiously not disturbed
the past promotions given to the Petitioners. This is a balance sought to be
struck by the Respondent No.1-PMC by not causing any hardship to anyone.
Following the settled principle of law, the PMC is justified in correcting its
past mistakes while applying the same prospectively, by preparing a
common seniority list.
59. Mr. Kulkarni has further contended that the instructions addressed in
the letter dated 16 February 2019 are received after the approval from the
Chief Minister, who was having the portfolio of the urban development
department at the relevant time. In this context, he would refer to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Haryana State Warehousing Corporation
v/s. Jagat Ram & Anr4 which has been duly considered by the Chief
Minister. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the
eligible candidates possessing the minimum necessary merit in the feeder
post is first ascertained. Thereafter, the promotions are strictly made in
accordance with seniority from among those who possess the minimum
necessary merit. This is recognized and accepted as complying with the
principle of seniority-cum-merit.
4. SLP (Civil) No. 2659 of 2011, decided on 23 February 2011.
24 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
60. Mr. Kulkarni would submit that though not binding a useful reference
can be made to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the
case of Vijay Kumar Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors .5 where the
facts were identical. It is held in paragraph 12 of the said judgment that it is
settled law that authorities have power to correct bonafide mistake in the
seniority list. An employee does not have a vested right to a seniority
position that was granted due to a mistake and authorities are empowered
to rectify such error.
61. The Respondents through Mr. Kulkarni would reiterate that the core
issue involved in the present case is therefore, as to whether without
causing hardship and disturbing previous promotions given to the
Petitioners, the Respondent No.1-PMC can correctly rectify its mistake.
According to him, this can be done, so far as it does not cause injustice to
Petitioners as their previous enjoyment of post is not disturbed. Even today,
their position as Executive Engineer will not be disturbed. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the Petitioners would suffer grave hardship on account
of selection of the private Respondents who are admittedly senior in service
to the Petitioners.
62. Mr. Kulkarni would then submit that identical facts had come for
consideration before a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case
of T. Valsan and Others v/s. K. Kanagaraj & Others6. The Supreme Court in
5. RSA-3431-2001, decided on 28 August 2025.
6. (2023) 7 SCC 614
25 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
the said decision held that the date of acquisition of higher education
cannot be the criteria for giving seniority to those, who acquired the same
early, at the cost of those who are having minimum qualification and who
are seniors in service, which would apply in the given case.
63. Mr. Kulkarni would next submit that in the absence of any prohibition
on correcting such mistake, it is inherent power of the Respondent No.1-
PMC to prepare a correct seniority list for the purpose of further
promotions, which can certainly apply prospectively. The Petitioners
according to Mr. Kulkarni could not show any such prohibitory provision.
Had the Respondent No.1-PMC disturbed their previous promotions, the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors. (supra)
would have been applicable for their case to say that hardship is caused to
the Petitioners. However, even considering the fact that the scope of judicial
review under Article 226 of the Constitution which can never apply in a
negative manner, the Petitioners cannot insist that merely because the
Corporation has committed error in the past, the same shall be perpetuated
in the future. This cannot be accepted so far as it does not affect the
previous promotions and disturb the position of the Petitioners on the post
of the Executive Engineer.
64. It is next contended by Mr. Kulkarni that as regards the participation
of Vijaykumar Thorat, it is submitted that the Respondent No. 1-PMC by
their Affidavit-In-Reply has merely placed on record that it has followed the
26 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
due process of law. Mr. Thorat has not filed the affidavit for his personal
reason and has done so in the capacity as the head of Administrative
Department of the Respondent No.1- PMC. Mr. Kulkarni would contend that
the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Administration was also a member of
the said DPC. This fact was known to the Petitioners. Under delegation of
powers under Section 69 of the MMC Act, 1949, the Municipal
Commissioner has delegated powers to file affidavits in any case to the
respective head of the Department. When one person is wearing different
hats, that does not mean that he has a personal interest in the case. All the
contentions of the Petitioners in that regard are without substance and
merit when the Petitioners are not alleging any malafide either against the
Municipal Corporation or against Mr. Thorat.
65. Mr. Kulkarni would reiterate that the provisional seniority list
published on 7 January 2026 is also pending consideration of objections.
Certainly, after considering such objections, the PMC will publish a fresh
seniority list on consideration of all objections, aspects, legal provisions,
guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time. The selection
list dated 2 September 2025 (supra) was prepared by the DPC after
considering the facts before it. Thus, it cannot be said that merely because
the proposed provisional seniority list dated 7 January 2026 and the
provisional select list prepared by the DPC on 2 September 2025 are
different, the latter is faulty.
27 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
66. Mr. Kulkarni has urged that as regards the contentions raised in
respect of Petitioner No.4 namely Mr. Ajay Wayse is concerned, admittedly
the said Mr. Wayse has received all promotions on the basis of Government
Resolution dated 25 May 2004 regarding promotions to candidates
belonging to backward class. He is completely covered by the G.R. dated 7
May 2021. As per the directions of the Division Bench of the High Court in
Writ Petition No. 2797 of 2015, his promotions will have to be ignored and
his status as on 25 May 2004 will have to be considered. Mr Kulkarni
submits that such position is not denied by the said Petitioner. Therefore,
inclusion of his name in the seniority list of 11 September 2024 does not
change the fact that he has received all promotions under the reservation
quota.
67. In light of all the above submission Mr. Kulkarni would urge that the
Petition is devoid of merit and ought to be dismissed.
Submissions on behalf of the private Respondent Nos.3 to 6:-
68. Mr. Surel Shah, learned senior counsel for the said Respondents has
toed the stand/position taken by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The said
Respondents are primarily aggrieved by the final seniority list of 11
September 2024, on the basis of which the Petitioners are stated to be
senior to the said Respondents.
69. Mr. Shah would at the outset submit that in the given case, it is the
date of joining/entry into service that ought to be considered for promotion
28 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
to the post of Executive Engineer and consequent to that of Superintending
Engineer. According to him the date of acquisition of qualification is not the
sole criteria, which should be accompanied by the length of service in the
employment of Respondent No.1. In that regard he has placed due reliance
on the decision of the DPC of 2 September 2025 which is duly reflected in
the Impugned Order. He has reiterated the submissions advanced on behalf
of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this regard.
70. Mr. Shah would submit that it is after consideration of the point wise
reply of the Respondent No.2-DPC to the Petitioners' representation that the
Impugned Order came to be passed. Thus, there is no fault, much less error
in the said order, which deserves to be upheld.
71. Mr. Shah would contend that as the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have
admitted their mistake which has crept in the final seniority list dated 11
September 2024. An opportunity ought to be given to the Respondent Nos.1
and 2 to correct the same. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
can pass appropriate directions/orders to rectify such mistake, to ensure
that the same is not perpetrated any further.
Analysis and Conclusion:-
72. We propose to deal with the disputes/controversy surrounding the
petition along with the issues raised, in two parts :-
A) The challenge by the Petitioners, to the promotion process in
the position of Superintending Engineer, of Respondent No.1-PMC
29 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
initiated by the Respondents, by placing reliance on the final seniority
list dated 11 September 2024, which according to the Respondents,
for the reasons narrated above, cannot be implemented.
B) Secondly, whether the Petitioners have rightly assailed the
Impugned Order mainly on the ground that it is a non-speaking
order, bereft of reasons and passed in contravention of an earlier
order of this Court dated 11 November 2025.
In the above context, we may first advert to Appendix - 2, to
the 2014 Service Rules. The Serial No.135 governing the post of
Superintending Engineer which is centrifugal to the present case,
reads thus :-
Sr. Cadre Designation Method of Eligibility for
No. Appointment & Appointment & Method
Percentage of Appointment
1. Nomination
2. Deputation
3. Promotion
135. Engineering Superintendi Deputation Appointment on
Service ng Engineer deputation from among
Grade 1 the officers of the State
Government who have
served for 05 years in
the post of
Superintending
Engineer (Civil).
Promotion A degree of B.E. (Civil)
100% or an equivalent degree
in the engineering
branch from a
recognized university.
Experience: Must have
03 years of work
30 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
experience in the post of
Executive Engineer
(Civil).
(emphasis supplied)
Deputation On deputation from
among the officers of
the State Government
who have served for 03
years in the post of
Superintending
Engineer.
The above makes it clear that for the position of
Superintending Engineer the statutory rules contemplate only a
degree of B.E (Civil) or its equivalent, with an experience of three
years in the feeder post of Executive Engineer (Civil). Serial 138 of
the said Appendix - 2 provides for Executive Engineer (Civil), the
feeder post for Superintending Engineer, which reads thus :-
Sr. Cadre Designation Method of Eligibility and Method of
No. Appointment Appointment
& Percentage
Nomination
Deputation
3. Promotion
138. Engineering Executive Promotion Based on seniority and merit
Service Engineer 100% in the establishment of Pune
Class - 1 (Civil) Municipal Corporation, from
among the Deputy Engineers
holding a degree in Civil
Engineering from a
recognized university, who
were appointed through
promotion (75%) and
nomination (25%) to the
31 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
cadre of Deputy Engineer
(Civil), a minimum of 03
years of experience on that
post is required.
(emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the above would indicate that it provides for a
qualification in terms of holding a degree in Civil Engineering for
those who were appointed through promotion (75%) and
nomination (25%) to the cadre of Deputy Engineer along with
minimum three years of experience in the post of Deputy Engineer to
acquire the designation/position of Executive Engineer. Such
requirement is not for the post of Superintending Engineer.
73. We would now advert to the 2014 Service Rules. The relevant sub
Rule reads as under:-
"4. Appointment by promotion. - Any appointment to be
made by promotion shall be made from amongst the eligible
employees on the principle of seniority-cum-merit."
The above makes it clear and evident that the principle to be applied
as per the said Rule is that of 'Seniority-cum-Merit'. This would entail that
the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought to ensure that the candidates should first
fulfill the minimum criteria/qualification in terms of merit in the feeder
post of Executive Engineer, coupled with three years of experience as
Executive Engineer. Having crossed such threshold of merit, comes the
requirement of seniority.
32 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
74. We may at this juncture advert to the G.R. dated 1 August 2019
issued by Government of Maharashtra, General Administration Department.
The relevant paragraph of the said G.R. (5.2.1) reads as under:-
"5.2.1 Service Seniority List
5.2.1 The Final seniority list for the year immediately preceding
the selection list for the lower category posts from which
promotion is to be granted to the higher category posts (viz if
the selection list is for the year 2017-18, the final seniority list as
on date 1st January 2017) should be drawn."
A perusal of the above para would entail that if the Selection list is for
a particular year, for instance 2017-2018, the final seniority list as on 1
January 2017 should be drawn. Therefore, in the given case there is a final
seniority list dated 11 September 2024, where the seniority would be with
effect from 1 January 2024. This under the above para of the said G.R
should be read with reference to the proposed select list for the year 2024-
2025. In view thereof, it ought not to date back to 25 May 2004 as
indicated in the proposed select list dated 2 September 2025, which,
admittedly, is not finalized and has therefore not seen the light of the day.
75. In the above context, we have also noted the submission of Mr.
Anturkar that even going by the proposed select list dated 2 September
2025, if one considers the seniority in the feeder cadre as the basis for
promotion to the respective promotional post, including that of
Superintending Engineer, the Petitioners are senior to the private
33 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
Respondents. However, this is a proposed/draft select list which remained
to be implemented by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, as no objections were
invited to such draft list, for its finalization, as the law would mandate. For
the reasons set out hereinafter, such proposed select list that proceeds on
the basis of date of initial appointment/joining to reckon the length of
service for promotion, does not stand legal scrutiny. For such reasons, we
are not, at this stage, delving into the said submission of Mr. Anturkar in
regard to the proposed select list.
76. The Respondents, despite specific query from the Court, have not
been able to point out any specific Rule providing that date of joining
service should be the basis for seniority qua promotion to the post of
Superintending Engineer. It is thus apparent that paragraph 5.2.1 (supra) of
the said 2019 G.R. in the form of Executive Instructions under Article 162
of the Constitution is compatible and compliments the 2014 Service Rules,
more particularly paragraph 4, as noted above. This is not a situation of
"unoccupied interstices" where any gap in the Rules and/or instructions is
to be filled. The Supreme Court had the occasion to interpret this principle
in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v/s. L. K. Ratna and Others 7
and S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan and Others8.
77. We may now test the contention of the Respondents through Mr.
Kulkarni on the reliance placed on Rule 15 of the 2014 Service Rules. The
7. (1986) 4 SCC 537
8. (1980) 4 SCC 379
34 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
said Rule read thus :-
"15. If any doubt arises regarding the interpretation of any
provision in these rules, the matter shall be referred to the
Government and the decision of the Government in that
regard shall be final."
A perusal of the above would indicate that it cannot be read and
construed in isolation without reference to the statutory framework in the
form of Rules, Regulations, and or Executive Instructions in the form of
Government Resolutions. The interpretation of the Respondents in this
context, to the effect that a matter when referred to the Government its
decision will be final, dehors such statutory Rules, cannot be countenanced.
The reference, simpliciter, of the first and second Respondent to Article 309
of the Constitution in vacuum, without reference to a Rule/GR which
supports their stand on date of joining/initial entry into service for
promotion, is not what the law mandates.
78. It would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in
Ved Prakash Vs. State of Haryana 9. The Supreme Court was confronted with
the interpretation of Rule 9 of the Punjab Forest Subordinate (Executive
Section) Rules where the criteria for promotion was 'Seniority-cum-Merit'.
The Supreme Court has observed that when promotion is based on the
yardstick of 'Seniority-cum-Merit', it is difficult to apprehend how merit will
be ignored from consideration. The requirement of merit being satisfied,
then the criteria for seniority ought to be determined and in that event,
9. (2002)10 SCC 359
35 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
promotion is bound to be given on the basis of seniority in the feeder cadre
to the promotional post.
79. Similar to the above is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Union of India Vs. C. Jayaprakasan 10. The Supreme Court observed that
in the absence of any specific Rule holding that continuous length of service
would be the basis for seniority in a particular grade, entry into the
immediately lower grade/feeder post, would be the normal rule for
promotion.
80. Apropos the above, in our view, emphasis of the Respondents on the
date of joining as the criteria for promotion to the post of Superintending
Engineer is not in sync with the relevant statutory 2014 Service Rules.
These partake constitutional character under Article 309 of the Constitution
of India. The G.R. dated 1 August 2019 ought to be read in context and
harmoniously with the 2014 Service Rules. Therefore, given the
unambiguous language in the said Rule and G.R. as set out above, we are
not persuaded to accept the stand of the Respondents that the initial date of
joining the service, ought to be the relevant criteria for reckoning
promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, in the given factual
complexion.
81. In the above context, we may refer to the letters dated 16 February
2019 and 21 February 2020 issued by the Government of Maharashtra,
10. (2010) 15 SCC 752
36 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
Urban Development Department (Supra) which is heavily relied on by the
Respondents in support of their stand. On perusal of the latter
correspondence, it is evident that there is clear reference to 'taking any
further action on the basis of Government Resolution/Rules' . This goes to
show that the Executive is conscious of the fact that in matters of promotion
based on the principle of seniority-cum-merit, the applicable Statutory
Rules along with the Executive Instructions, ought to be duly considered.
This ought not to be reduced to a mere formality. For such reasons, we are
unable to accept the submission of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, premised
on the said letters which are projected as the force behind the decision
dated 2 September 2025 of the Respondent No.2-DPC, as reflected in the
Impugned Order.
82. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 through Mr. Kulkarni have placed much
reliance on the G.R. dated 7 May 2021. In this context the relevant portion
of the said G.R. is extracted below:-
"3. Those officers/employees belongs to backward class
category and whose names have been mentioned at the top
in the Seniority list after their availing the benefit of
reservation in promotion as per the provisions prescribed in
the Government Resolution, dated 25.05.2004, referred to
hereinabove at Sr. No. 1 in read, all such
Officers/Employees -
(A) if they have joined the Government Service on or before
the date 25.05.2004, then they shall become eligible for
37 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
further promotion as per their seniority as on the date
25.05.2004.
B) If they have joined the Government service after the
date 25.05.2004, then they shall become eligible for further
promotion as per their original seniority as on the date of
their joining the service."
A bare perusal of the above makes it clear that the said G.R. only
applies to those officers/employees who have moved up the ladder in
service seniority, taking benefit of the reservation in promotion in terms of
the G.R. dated 25 May 2004. In other words, the said G.R. as it stands, is
not applicable to persons belonging to the open category.
83. Apropos the above, the interpretation of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2
on the said G.R. inasmuch as it is equally applicable to open category
candidates seems to be misconstrued, misplaced and extraneous to the said
G.R. As far as the averments in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Affidavit-In-
Reply filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is concerned, the stand taken by
them is misconstrued. This is inasmuch as the G.R. of 7 May 2021 referred
to therein, does not apply to Open category candidates as noted above viz.
Petitioner Nos.1 to 3. Further, the letter dated 16 February 2019 is only an
opinion of the officers of the executive and cannot partake the nature
and/or character of an executive instruction as clearly held by the Supreme
Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors. (supra).
84. Mr. Kulkarni to buttress the case of the Respondents has drawn
38 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
support from a few decisions. He has first placed reliance on the decision of
the Supreme Court in Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr.
(supra). This was clearly a case of accelerated promotion completely
different and distinct from the present factual situation. Moreover, in the
present case, the 2014 Service Rules read with the G.R. of 1 August 2019
lend clarity in the given situation where the criteria of promotion to the
post of Superintending Engineer is based on seniority-cum-merit. The
decision next relied on by Mr. Kulkarni in Haryana State Warehousing
Corporation (supra) also does not cut ice. There is no quarrel with the
proposition that promotions are made strictly in accordance with seniority
after possessing minimum necessary merit in the feeder post, in due
compliance with the principle of seniority cum merit. Our reference to the
decision of Ved Prakash (supra) in fact endorses such said legal position,
which in fact is sought to be departed from, by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
85. We may now refer to the decision relied on by Mr. Kulkarni in T.
Valsan and K. Kanaraj & Ors. (supra). A perusal of the said decision would
reveal that the factual matrix of the given case was completely different.
The Supreme Court in its analysis followed by its conclusion placed much
reliance on another decision in C. Chakkarvarthy Vs. M. Satyavathy11 where
the Government relied on DOPT guidelines in the context of promotion to
the post of Assistant Engineer where service was based on merit and merit
11. 2015 16 SCC 652
39 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
alone without taking seniority as an input for determining such merit.
Whereas in the present case the promotion is based on seniority-cum-merit
as contemplated under the 2014 Service Rules and the G.R. dated 1 August
2019, both of which are binding on the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Needless
to mention that seniority-cum-merit and merit alone are different concepts
and principles in service jurisprudence having distinct legal connotation. We
may further refer to the decision pressed by Mr. Kulkarni of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Vijay Kumar Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board
(supra). An employee, in a particular case, may not have vested right to
seniority which was granted due to a mistake. However, that fact situation
is in no manner whatsoever comparable to the given factual complexion, in
light of the aforesaid discussion.
86. We may now advert to the contention of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2
through Mr. Kulkarni that the Impugned Order is passed within the confines
of law and in conformity with the earlier order of this Court dated 11
November 2025. Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by
the parties in this regard, we may refer to the relevant extract of our earlier
order which reads thus:-
"4. To balance the equities, we deem it appropriate to permit
the Petitioners in the second Petition to file a representation
raising grounds with regard to the select list, to the chairman of
the DPC, by tomorrow i.e. 12th November 2025 at 2:00 p.m. As
like the Petitioner in the first petition namely, Ajay Dattatraya
40 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
Wayase, the DPC would consider the representations of each of
these Petitioners and deal with every issue raised. A reasoned
order should be passed. If an adverse order is passed, the same
would not be implemented for two weeks."
In the above context, we may juxtapose the above directions in the
said order of this Court to the Impugned Order. The Impugned Order as it
stands nowhere refers to the response to the Petitioners' representation
given in tabular form. The record reveals that the same was shared with the
Petitioners, by the Respondent No.1 only vide separate emails dated 11
December 2025.
87. We are not persuaded to accept the contention of Mr. Kulkarni that
the response to the representation of the Petitioners, is contained in the
Impugned Order. The same is res ipsa loquitur. The High Court in its order
dated 11 November 2025 has specifically directed that a reasoned order
should be passed after considering the representation of each Petitioner and
dealing with every issue raised. This is not borne out from a bare perusal of
the Impugned Order, when the response to the representation of the
Petitioners, in tabular form, was sent by separate emails after passing of the
Impugned Order. Detailing reasons in the Impugned Order itself was the
mandate to be followed by the Respondent No.2-DPC. In this context it
would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sant Lal
Gupta & Ors. Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors 12,
12. (2010) 13 SCC 336
41 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
where the Supreme Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every
conclusion, without the same it becomes lifeless. In such backdrop, the
Respondent No.1-PMC ought to have been circumspect in its actions, more
particularly as 'State', under the aegis of Article 12 of our Constitution.
88. We find force in the submission of Mr. Anturkar to the effect that the
response to the Petitioners' representation in tabular format is signed by
two persons, only one of whom happens to also be a signatory to the
Impugned Order. This is pertinent, inasmuch as if such response was a part
of the Impugned Order, it would not have been separately signed by two
persons namely the Administrative Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of
the Respondent No. 1-PMC. This is more particularly, when only the latter
i.e. the Deputy Commissioner was a signatory to the Impugned Order. The
Petitioners in the present facts have not attributed malafides to any member
of the DPC. In fact, the litmus test for such Impugned Order is due
compliance with the principles of natural justice in letter and spirit. This
would entail inclusion and incorporation of detailed reasons in the
Impugned Order itself, as mandated by this Court's earlier order dated 11
November 2025, absence of which is conspicuous. At this juncture, we find
it apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh
Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. 13 which
is considered to be the locus classicus on the proposition that when a
13 (1978) 1 SCC 405
42 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity
must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented
by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.
89. We may now refer to the reliance placed by Mr. Anturkar on the
decision of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra), more particularly in
paragraphs 17, 18, 29 and 30 thereof. Here the Supreme Court has held
that letters issued by the Government departments being merely opinion of
the departments cannot be conferred the status of executive instructions. It
concludes by reiterating the settled legal proposition that once seniority has
been fixed and remains in existence, for a reasonable period, it ought not to
be disturbed. The ratio and the principles laid down in the said decision are
clearly applicable in the given facts as the letters dated 16 February 2019
and 21 February 2020 referred by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot be
elevated to that of executive instructions.
90. We see no reason much less justification to dislodge the final
seniority list, not otherwise legally superseded or assailed by the
Respondents, in the given factual complexion. The distinction sought to be
made by Mr. Kulkarni on the said judgment that guidance of the
Government is permissible is not disputed. However, we reiterate that such
opinion of the executive manifesting itself in letters cannot be the gospel
and/or the sole yardstick in such matters. In view thereof, the decision cited
by Mr. Kulkarni in Ashok Ram Parhad & Anr. (supra) is also not apposite in
43 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
the given facts. Moreover, it cannot be disputed that the G.R. dated 1
August 2019 ought to be read in harmony and conformity with the 2014
Service Rules.
91. It is in the above context and backdrop that in our view, the final
seniority list dated 11 September 2024 assumes importance particularly
when the same is not superseded and/or challenged by the Respondents in
the manner the law would require. It therefore settles the position for
promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. It is in the interest of
administrative discipline and uniformity that such final seniority list ought
to be implemented. We may at this juncture, gainfully refer to the decision
of the Supreme Court in V. Vincent Velankanni Vs. The Union of India &
Ors14. In this case, the Supreme Court observed thus:-
"50. Thus, much water has flown under the bridge and
retrospective application of the GO issued in 2015 would open
floodgates of litigation and would disturb the seniority of many
employees causing them grave prejudice and heartburn as it
would disturb the crystallized rights regarding seniority, rank and
promotion which would have accrued to them during the
intervening period. To alter a seniority list after such a long
period would be totally unjust to the multitudes of employees
who could get caught in the labyrinth of uncertainty for no fault
of theirs and may suffer loss of their seniority rights
retrospectively"
In addition to the above, we may also refer to the decisions of the
Supreme Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra); B.S. Bajwa & Anr. vs
14. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2642
44 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
State of Punjab & Ors15; K.R. Mudgal and Others vs R.P. Singh and Others 16
and Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza vs Union of India & Ors 17, where the
Supreme Court has in similar fact situation, declined to interfere with the
settled position, qua seniority list.
92. We now advert to Mr. Kulkarni's thrust and emphasis on correcting
the mistake in the final seniority list dated 11 September 2024 and not
allowing it to perpetuate. This appears to be attractive at the first blush, but
is untenable on deeper scrutiny. We say so as our attention is invited to the
draft seniority list published recently as on 7 January 2026 by the
Respondent No.1-PMC. A bare perusal of the same indicates that the
Petitioners are clearly senior to Respondent Nos.4 to 6. It appears from the
said list that Respondent No.3 and Petitioner No.2 were promoted to the
feeder post of Executive Engineer on the same date i.e. 3 March 2020.
Thus, when the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 intend to conduct the promotion
process in accordance with the proposed select list dated 2 September
2025, which as discussed above is legally untenable, it is imperative for this
Court to refrain from confirming the Impugned Order.
93. In our view, had the first and second Respondents been sure of their
stand, more particularly, the mistake that they intended to correct, the
length of service/seniority from the date of joining/entry into service would
15. 1997 SCC OnLine SC 181
16. (1986) 4 SCC 531
17. (1976) 1 SCC 599
45 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
have been so reflected, at least, in the said draft seniority list of 7 January
2026. However, this is not so. We may thus observe that the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 by their conduct in the said promotion process have neither
been consistent, much less uniform which deters us from accepting their
stand on mistake in the given factual matrix. The contention of the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that objections are invited to the draft seniority list
of 7 January 2026, which would then be considered, takes their case no
further.
94. As far as Petitioner No.4 i.e. Ajay Dattatraya Wayse is concerned, we
may refer to the office circular dated 11 September 2024, issued by
Respondent No.1-PMC. It is under this that the Final Seniority List is issued.
This consciously refers to the G.R. dated 7 May 2021 (supra). Moreover, the
said circular is neither superseded nor challenged by the Respondents.
Thus, it further clarifies that the final seniority list of 11 September 2024 is
published, subject to the final decision in SLP No. 28306 of 2017 (supra),
pending in the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we deem it fit to subject his
promotion to take effect in terms of the final seniority list dated 11
September 2024, to the final outcome in the pending proceedings before
the Supreme Court in (SLP) No.28306 of 2017 (supra).
95. We have noted the contentions of Mr. Surel Shah for the private
Respondents. In our view, it is a reiteration of the position taken by the first
and second Respondents, which we have elaborately dealt with in the
46 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
paragraphs above. We are of the considered view that the date of
joining/initial entry, overlooking the seniority position in the feeder cadre
to the promotional post ought not to be the criteria for promotions,
including to the post of Superintending Engineer. We are not persuaded by
the submission of Mr. Shah, for the reasons noted above, that this is a case
which warrants our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution by
nullifying the final seniority list and consequently confirming the Impugned
Order.
96. For all the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to allow the Petition by
setting aside the Impugned Order 11 December 2025 and confirming the
final seniority list dated 11 September 2024, with all consequences arising
therefrom. As far as the draft proposed select list dated 2 September 2025 is
concerned, the same shall not be given effect to and/or acted upon by the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, we clarify that the promotion of
Petitioner No.4 as indicated above shall be subject to the outcome of the
pending Supreme Court proceedings (supra).
97. Before parting, we may observe that in the given factual complexion,
there are no compelling reasons advanced by the Respondents which
warrant our interference. We see no reason, much less justification to
disturb and/or dislodge the final seniority list, in exercise of our
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We are
conscious of the admission of mistake by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
47 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
However, having concluded that the position taken by the first and second
Respondents is not within the legal framework/parameters, we are equally
mindful of the prejudice and heartburn that would inure to the Petitioners
and such other persons. This is more particularly when their rights have
been crystallized, vide the final seniority list. It would not be just or fair to
have the Petitioners and/or similarly situated persons entangled in the
labyrinth of uncertainty. This does not appeal to our conscience and such
approach in our considered view, would not lead to substantive justice. In
view thereof, we are persuaded to hold that in the given factual
complexion, justice lies on the side of the Petitioners, warranting relief in
their favour.
98. We therefore pass the following order:-
ORDER
a) The Impugned Order dated 11 December 2025 passed by
Respondent No.2- DPC is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the
proposed draft select list dated 2 September 2025, shall not be acted
upon and/or given effect to by the first and second Respondents.
b) The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to implement the Final
Seniority List dated 11 September 2024, in any event not later than
in two weeks from the date of uploading of this order, with all
consequences arising therefrom. The promotion of Petitioner No.4
shall, however, be subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court
48 J-WP-17202-2025.doc
decision in (SLP) No.28306 of 2017 (The State of Maharashtra &
Anr vs Shri Vijay Ghogre & Ors.) (supra).
c) The Petition is made Absolute in the above terms.
d) No order as to costs.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
