Petitioners challenged denial of promotion consideration for Executive Engineers citing cadre allegations. Respondent AGP committed to review Tribunal judgments and applicable recruitment rules. Court found no intervention warranted and disposed of the petition accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/4 22090.14-wpst.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 22090 OF 2014
Pradeep Eknath Dalvi and others. ... Petitioners. V/s. The Secretary, Public Works Department, State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents.
A.Y.Sakhare i/b. Joel John Carlos for the petitioners.
Ms.Aparna Watkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Ms.Swati P. Manchekar for respondent Nos.11, 16, 22 and 24.
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
DATED : 5th September 2014.
P.C. :
Heard. Perused the order passed by the Tribunal.
2/4 22090.14-wpst.sxw
The grievance is more precise in respect of AE-I as the State Government has come out with the case that 43 Executive Engineers were promoted from the said cadre in excess of the permissible vacancy in the prescribed cadre.
| S.No. | Post | Short-fall/Excess |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | AEE (Directly recruited through MPSC |
-28 |
| 2. | AE-I (Directly recruited through MPSC) |
+43 |
| 3. | SDE (Promotional Post from AE- II) |
-31 |
| 4. | SDO (Promotional post from Junior Engineer) |
-10 |
3/4 22090.14-wpst.sxw
permissible vacancy is not correct in view of the orders passed by the judicial forum confirming the order of appointment granted to the Executive Engineers in this cadre upto 1998. The apprehension of the learned counsel is that if the State is of the view that 43 Executive Engineers were appointed in excess of cadre strength then the petitioners who were appointed in the year 1995 would not get any chance of being considered for the post of Executive Engineer till their superannuation.
4/4 22090.14-wpst.sxw
in different cadres, the rules framed i.e. Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class II (regulation of Seniority and Preparation and Revision of Seniority Lists) Rules of 1983 shall be considered in the light of available vacancies according to law. We are informed that the decision taken by the Tribunal in respect of appointments made prior to the year 1998 to the post of Executive Engineer is subjudice before higher forum.
Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, Assistant Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers, should be considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer considering cadre strength and vacancies.
Whether rules framed under Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class II Rules should be followed in light of existing vacancies and judicial orders.
Whether further judicial intervention is warranted in the matter regarding promotion grievances of engineers.
Pradeep Eknath Dalvi
The Secretary, Public Works Department, State of Maharashtra
NARESH H. PATIL
B.P. COLABAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
