PRABHAKAR Vs. THE HONBLE MINISTER OF INDUSTRIES AND CHAIRMAN, MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of parties taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

(2.) Petitioner has approached with a case that in the year 1978, he joined service with respondent No. 2 as a Overseer. Subsequently he was promoted as Deputy Engineer, Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer as well as Additional Chief Engineer. He joined the service from Civil Engineering cadre. Whereas the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 joined service with respondent No. 2 in the year 1998 from Environmental Engineering cadre.

(3.) According to petitioner, throughout his service tenure he was victimized by superiors and all the while he was required to knock the doors of the Court to be promoted on promotional post. In the year 1998, although he was eligible for the post of Superintending Engineer and senior most candidate in the zone of consideration from the reserved category and Selection Committee selected him, still the promotion order was not issued in his favour. He was therefore, required to approach the High Court. He filed Writ Petition No. 2415 of 1998 in which vide order dated 25/02/2000, passed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur respondent No. 2 was directed to consider his case for promotion as per recommendation of the Selection Committee before 31/03/2000 and further grant him deem date of seniority. It is the say of the petitioner that after the order passed by Hon'ble High Court, he was given promotion as Superintending Engineer. Again in the year 2007, though he was eligible for promotion for the post of Additional Chief Engineer, he was denied promotion on the pretext of departmental enquiry pending against him. Therefore he was required to file Writ Petition No. 4188 of 2007 challenging the departmental enquiry initiated against him as well as order of promotion issued in favour of Shri. N. D. Gade, Respondent No. 3 in said petition. By the judgment and Order dated 30/06/2009 passed in said petition, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Bilal Nazki and Smt. V. K. Tahilramani, JJ.), quashed and set aside the order of promotion dated 25/05/2007 given to respondent No. 3 by upholding the contention of petitioner that process of selection was vitiated as in spite of respondent No. 3 was in the zone of consideration, he appointed as one of the member of Selection Committee constituted for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer, Pune. So also Hon'ble High Court quashed the departmental enquiry proceeding initiated against the petitioner. During the pendency of the said petition, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer. It is the say of petitioner that in the year 2013, he was senior most and eligible person for the post of Chief Engineer and respondent Nos. 3 & 4 were junior to him. In accordance with the recruitment Rules governing the appointment, promotion of the employees and officers of respondent No. 2 Corporation, promotions are to be made for the post of Chief Engineer on the basis of "Seniority-Cum Merit." It is the say of the petitioner that in the year 2013, he was fulfilling the requisite bench mark fixed for the selection for post of chief engineer and senior most candidate, entitled to be promoted as Chief Engineer. As per his confidential reports of previous five years, he was throughout rated as "very good" and there was nothing adverse against him to deny promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. However, the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 01/04/2013 though found him eligible for promotion, based upon seniority-cum-merit, but not recommended his name, solely on the ground of pendency of departmental enquiry proceeding against him. Selection Committee recommended the names of respondent Nos. 3 & 4 who were juniors to him to be promoted as Chief Engineer, Mumbai and Pune respectively. Recommendation made by the Selection Committee were accepted by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 issued order of appointment to them as Chief Engineers w.e.f 13/05/2013. Being aggrieved by said decision of respondent No. 2 to deny him promotion, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.