BASWANT SHANKARAPPA SWAMI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated November 21, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellant was dismissed and the judgment dated November 26, 2007 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) has been upheld.

(3.) The appellant is a Graduate Engineer (Civil). He was selected and nominated by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (for short the commission) as Assistant Executive Engineer Class I in the Maharashtra Service of Engineers (Group A) in the Irrigation Department on September 11, 1989. The appellant was promoted as Executive Engineer, a Class I post, vide office order dated September 7, 1993. On March 1, 1996 the Governor of Maharashtra made the rules called the Superintending Engineer (Civil) in the Maharashtra Service of Engineers Group A, in the Irrigation Department (Recruitment Rules, 1996 (for short the Rules). Rules 2 and 4 thereof came into force on the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette while as regards rule 3, it was provided that it shall come into force on such date as may be notified by the State Government in consultation with the Commission. On September 30, 1999, a notification came to be issued declaring March 1, 2001 to be date for coming into force of rule 3. According to the appellant, although he completed 7 years on the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) in the month of September 2, 2000 and his juniors in the cadre of Executive Engineer were promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in 2005 but he was denied promotion having not gained experience in any one or more of the branches from each of the groups provided in rule 3. The appellant constrained thereby approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for redressal of his grievance. The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of rule 3 before the Tribunal being arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.