SAMBHAJI WAGHOJI ASOLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) The petitioners challenge the order of reversion dated 17-6-2005 on three counts; firstly, that the promotion which was granted to the petitioners could not have been on conditional relaxation of the qualification pertaining to the passing of the professional examination; secondly, the Government policy does not permit reversion of the employees in reserved category where the promotional cadre does not have the prescribed percentage of reserved category employees, and thirdly, that the backlog created on account of failure to fill-up the posts meant for reserved category does not justify the reversion of the petitioners.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioners, drawing attention to Rule 5 (2) of the Recruitment Rules, submitted that the authority is not empowered to grant conditional or restrictive relaxation of the required qualification for promotion in the absence of specific provision empowering the authority to impose such condition or the restriction. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala and Ors. , reported in.