BASAWANT DEVIDAS NANDGAVALI Vs. SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard finally by consent. Perused affidavits on record. The petitioner has prayed for to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as 'MAT') and for opportunity to contest his claim of notional and deemed date of promotion on merits by condoning the alleged delay.

(2.) It is case of the Petitioner that on 27-07-1976 he was appointed as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the office of the Irrigation Department at Aurangabad. On 15-09-1983 employees from the open category were promoted as Deputy Engineer (Mechanical) against reserved post on the ground that the persons from the reserved categories were not available though the Petitioner was eligible for promotion against the reserved post. The petitioner was promoted on 18-02-1991 as Deputy Engineer(Mechanical) at Nanded, when he came to know that his name was shown in the select list of 1982 itself but for reasons unknown he was not promoted. The petitioner made representation on 14-08-1991 and demanded deemed date of promotion with effect from 1982, but the respondent failed to reply or communicate any decision on the representation. On 08-12-1995 the caste validity certificate of the Petitioner issued by the Tahasildar, Aurangabad was declared valid by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad. On 14-06-1996 the respondent informed the petitioner that his name was in the select list and the Promotion Committee had considered it in 1982, however according to the Committee the confidential report of the Petitioner was adverse and not up to the mark. No copy of any adverse confidential report was communicated to the Petitioner. On 06-12-1996 the Deputy Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya referred to the Caste Certificate of the Petitioner to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, which on 11-02-1998 had rejected the claim of the Petitioner, declared that the petitioner was not belonging to reserved category "Gadi Lohar (NT)" and the Petitioner was reverted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical). The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2415 of 1998 and challenged the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which was rejected by this Court. The Petitioner preferred the Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which the Social Welfare Department, Aurangabad Division was directed to consider the caste claim, but on 21-11-2000 the caste claim was declared invalid. In another Writ Petition No. 5173 of 2001 this Court had directed the Caste Verification Committee to validate the Caste Certificate of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the caste validity certificate was issued 08-12-2003. SLP filed by the State was rejected and the State withdrew it's earlier order of reversion and promoted the petitioner on 14-09-2005 to the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical). The Petitioner's request for deemed date of promotion was rejected on 21-05-2010. Hence, Petitioner filed Original Application No. 924 of 2011 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) alongwith Miscellaneous Application No.15 of 2011 for delay condonation. But it was rejected on 20-09-2011. Thus, present Writ Petition was filed.

(3.) It is grievance of the Petitioner that despite repeated representations by him, no proper reply was given by the State. Delay in issuance of the Caste Validity Certificate to the petitioner was due to gross negligence committed by the respondent-State to decide his claim within reasonable period. In the result, the Petitioner had no other option but to indulge in long fought litigation for his right to notional or deemed date of promotion from the year 1982. He was never communicated with any adverse remark in his confidential report or confidential report from 1976 to 1982. The petitioner was reverted on the ground that there was no validation of Caste Certificate. The long fought litigation fetched good result that the Petitioner was restored to the post of Deputy Engineer (Mechanical) on 7th February, 2005 with all consequential benefits from the year 1991. It is stand of the Petitioner that he ought to have been promoted in the year 1982 itself. But , officer of the respondents were acting in the interest of their near ones and were hiding the information from the Petitioner. Although promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right, there is immense sanctity to the seniority list which is required to be regularly maintained. The administrative authority exercising the discretion to promote is legitimately expected to maintain proper balance between the adverse effects which may rise from its decision upon the right, liberty and interest of the persons concerned who may be deprived of benefit of promotion and the purpose of the decision to promote righteous person as permissible according to Rules and Regulations or Law applicable in such case. As far as possible, to save expenses on public exchequer, the prolonged litigation leading to unrest, chaos in services ought to be avoided by the Government, State instrumentality or Public Authority as employer. What is expected legitimately is legal, rational, and transparent decisions following the appropriate procedure by due examination of merits of each case.