SHRI. PRADEEP SAKHARAM MAYEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who is working in the Secretariat of the Maharashtra Legislative Council on the post of "Section Officer" has interalia prayed for a direction that the record and proceedings of the Promotional Committee of the Maharashtra Legislative Council whereby a decision to grant promotion to Respondent Nos.4 and 5 vide order dated 28 February 2012 to the post of "Under Secretary", be called for and same be quashed and set aside and for the further relief that the Respondents be directed to grant promotion to the Petitioner prior to Respondent Nos.4 and 5 assuming charge on their promotional post.

(2.) In nutshell, the facts are: By an order dated 1 November 1990 the Petitioner under a direct selection was appointed on the post of Assistant. Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Section Officer on 25 June 2007. While in service the Petitioner undertook the Bachelor of General Law course (for short 'BGL') from the Annamalai University and passed the BGL examination in or about January,2009. It is the case of the Petitioner that as he had completed three years as a Section Officer in June,2010, he had become eligible for promotion to the post of "Under Secretary". The qualification for recruitment/appointment/promotion to the post of "Under Secretary" is provided in Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Legislature Secretariat (Recruitment and conditions of Service) Rules,1973 (for short '1973 Rules'). The relevant Rule reads thus: -

(3.) The Petitioner accordingly made a representation dated 11 May 2011 submitting all the requisite details of his eligibility and that he being in the zone of consideration, his claim for promotion be considered by fixing seniority. However, no action was taken on his representation. The Petitioner, therefore, sent reminder letters dated 24 June 2011 and 19 January 2012 requesting Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider his case and promote him to the post of "Under Secretary". The Petitioner has contended that he was senior to Respondent Nos.4 and 5 as the position of the Petitioner in seniority list of Section Officer is at Sr.no.28 and whereas the seniority position of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 was at Sr.Nos.32 and 38 respectively. This position of seniority was consequent to the confirmation of the Petitioner as a Section Officer on 25 June 2007 and Respondent Nos.4 and 5 being confirmed as Section Officer on 12 February 2009 and 30 July 2009 respectively that is two years after the Petitioner was confirmed. The Petitioner had excellent meritorious service record and therefore, it would have been appropriate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to promote the Petitioner.