SHRI. BIPIN BABURAO SAPTE AND ORS.versusBHIWANDI NIZAMPUR CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

                                                                                            25-WP-8866-2022.DOC



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHAMBHAVI                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
NILESH
SHIVGAN

Digitally signed by
SHAMBHAVI
NILESH SHIVGAN
                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 8866 OF 2022
Date: 2026.08.18
20:30:20 +0530

                      Bipin Baburao Sapte & Ors.                                      ...Petitioners
                             Versus
                      Bhiwandi Nizampur City
                      Municipal Corporation & Ors.                                    ...Respondents
                                                              _______
                      Ms. Anita Bhaktwani, for Petitioners.
                      Mr. Narayan Bubna, with Pooja Malik and A. A. Achhra, for Respondent No.1.
                      Ms. Pooja M. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                                              _______

                                                    CORAM:        G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                                  DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                                                    DATE:         18th AUGUST 2026

                      P.C.

                      1.        The Petitioners seek to quash and set aside letter dated 24 th October 2016

                      issued by Respondent No.5 to Respondent No.2 herein directing latter to act in aid

                      of the report dated 27th March 2015 pertaining to the inquiry conducted in

                      complaints made by one Shri Santosh Janu Chavan to the Lokayukta. The

                      Petitioners also seek to set aside letter dated 13 th October 2017 vide which the

                      Petitioners’ promotions to higher posts were canceled.

                      2.        The Petitioners are stated to be employees of Respondent No.1-Bhiwandi

                      Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, serving on different posts. Respondent

                      No.2 is the Commissioner; Respondent No.3 is the Divisional Commissioner;

                      Respondent No.4 is the Lokayukta; and Respondent No.5 is the Principal

                      Secretary of the Urban Development Department of Respondent No.6- State of



                                                          Page 1 of 5
                      Shivgan
                                                                        25-WP-8866-2022.DOC



Maharashtra.

3.        The case of the Petitioners is that they were initially appointed as Class-III

and Class-IV employees and were gradually promoted to higher posts. In 2011,

they were granted further promotion subject to the approval of the Municipal

Corporation. According to them, their promotions were approved and confirmed

in the meeting dated 21st November 2011. It is claimed that these promotions were

made as per the needs of the Corporation considering the vacancies that had arisen

and availability of candidates. They received their individual promotion on 30 th

April 2013.

4.        One Mr. Santosh Janu Chavan made various complaints with the

Respondents pertaining to the promotions granted to the Petitioners and other

employees, specifically naming two employees namely, Deepak Kadam and Shan

Ali Hasan Ali. Since Respondent-Corporation failed to take cognizance, the said

Mr. Chavan addressed his complaints to Respondent No.4-Lokayukta and

Respondent No.5. Respondent No.5, in turn, directed an inquiry into the manner

and mode of promotion of the Petitioners and others. The inquiry report was

submitted on 23rd December 2014 justifying the promotions. Another inquiry was

directed into the matter and the Additional Collector, Thane placed his report

dated 27th March 2015 before Respondent No.5. This report indicated that the

Petitioners’ promotions were irregular and incorrect inasmuch as the promotions

were made without following the rules in that regard and without holding any

examinations necessary to consider such promotions. The report also stated that

the Petitioners and others had not appeared for the examinations and neither were



                                     Page 2 of 5
Shivgan
                                                                     25-WP-8866-2022.DOC



they qualified to be appointed to such promoted posts. It is also held that the

complaint made by Mr. Santosh Janu Chavan was justified.

5.        Considering that the report revealed irregularities in promoting the

Petitioners and others, the impugned letter dated 24 th October 2016 was issued and

was followed by the letter dated 13th October 2017 canceling the Petitioners’

promotions. Aggrieved by the cancellations of their promotions, the Petitioners are

before this Court for the reliefs as prayed.

6.        Heard Ms. Anita Bhaktwani learned counsel for the         Petitioners; Mr.

Narayan Bubna representing Respondent No.1 and Ms. Pooja M. Deshpande, AGP

representing the Respondent-State.

7.        Ms. Bhaktwani submitted that Respondent No.2 failed to pass a reasoned

order of cancellation of the Petitioners’ promotions. She submitted that the

cancellation was beyond the powers of Respondent No.2. Ms. Bhaktwani further

contended that although Mr. Chavan had complained only against two promotees

namely, Mr. Deepak Kadam and Shan Ali Hasan Ali, all the promotions were

canceled. Even Mr. Chavan’s credentials were not checked. Thus, Ms. Bhaktwani

says that on the face of it, the impugned letter of cancellation of the promotions is

nothing but victimization of the Petitioners. She finally submitted that some of the

Petitioners are already retired and demoting them at this stage has caused prejudice

to those who have retired. Hence, she prays that the Petition be allowed.

8.        Mr. Bubna has pointed out contents of the inquiry report. He submits that

the decision making process of the promotion exercise itself was arbitrary and done

without following the relevant rules. Hence, he justified the cancellation of the



                                    Page 3 of 5
Shivgan
                                                                       25-WP-8866-2022.DOC



promotions and prayed for dismissal of the Petition.

9.        It is a settled position of law that an employee does not have the vested

right to be promoted nor does he possess a legitimate expectation to be promoted.

The limited right that an employee can legitimately claim is for consideration of his

candidature. In the present case, however, the Petitioners were promoted without

following the proper procedure. The averments made in the Petition itself indicates

that the Petitioners and others were promoted on a need based requirement and

availability of the candidates. The service rules pertaining to promoting these

Petitioners to various posts provides for conducting necessary examinations. The

inquiry report indicates that no such examination was conducted. The Petitioners

were neither qualified for the promotee posts nor did they have necessary

experience required for the said posts. There were other candidates qualified and

available to be considered for promotions, but for extraneous reasons, those

candidates were ignored and the Petitioners and others were promoted.

10.       All these irregularities were highlighted in the inquiry report. It is on the

basis of this inquiry report that the promotions are canceled by Respondent No. 2.

There is no glaring fallacy discernible from the impugned order before us.

11.       Considering the factual matrix, we are unable to accept the submissions

made on behalf of the Petitioners. It is clear that erroneous promotions were given

contrary to the service rules and the eligibility requirements and consequently, such

employees including the Petitioners have not been allowed to enjoy the fruits of

such improper promotions. The Petitioners cannot base their claims for promotions

contrary to statutory service rules. The infringement of statutory service rules



                                     Page 4 of 5
Shivgan
                                                                      25-WP-8866-2022.DOC



cannot be permitted to be perpetuated.

12.       In view of the aforesaid, we are unable to agree with the submissions made

on behalf of the Petitioners. Moreover, the Petitioners have not even specified the

details of the Petitioners, who retired prior to the passing of the impugned order. In

any case, there is no prejudice caused to the retirees on account of the impugned

order. Hence, we find no infirmity in the decision making process of the impugned

order. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.




(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)                             (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)




                                    Page 5 of 5
Shivgan