Holding

The reversion order is valid and does not contravene Standing Order 32(a) of the MSRTC.

Summary

The appellant, a Senior Foreman in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), was temporarily promoted to Depot Manager (A) on 5 September 1994 with a condition that he would be reverted to his original post upon the availability of a direct‑sector candidate. After being considered several times by the Departmental Promotion Committee and found unfit for regular promotion, he was reverted on 28 August 1998. He challenged the reversion, contending that Standing Order 32(a) of MSRTC entitled him to remain in the temporary post until a suitable direct recruit was found. The Supreme Court held that the reversion did not breach Standing Order 32(a) because the appellant had been duly considered for substantive promotion and was found unfit, and therefore the order of reversion was valid. The Court dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the reversion of a temporarily promoted employee, made on the basis that the employee was unfit for regular promotion, violates Standing Order 32(a) of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation.

Subjects

Service LawTemporary PromotionReversionStanding Order 32Maharashtra State Road Transport CorporationDepartmental Promotion CommitteeEmployee Rights

Judgment

SAYYED FAKHRUL ISLAM A
v.
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. AND ORS.

APRIL 26, 2002

[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. V ARIA VA, JJ.] B

__; - Service Law :

Employee-Temporary promotion-Reversion Order-Validity of-
Employee temporarily promoted against direct sector vacancies-Condition c
that on availability of candidates from direct sector he would be reverted to
original post-Employee considered by Departmental Promotion Committee--
Found unfit for promotion-Reversion order held valid-'-Not violative of
Standing Order 32 of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation.

The appellant a Senior Foreman in the respondent-Transport
D
Corporation was temporarily promoted as Depot Manager 'A' 8Jld
>
subseqnently revert"'1 to his original post. His order of promotion specifically
provided that his promotion was against the direct sector vacancies and on
availability of candidates from direct sector he would be reverted to his
original post. He unsuccessfully assailed the validity of the reversi?n order E
before High Court of Bombay.

In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalfof the appellant that
as the post of Depot Manager 'A' was not filled up on regular basis the
appellant was entitled to continue temporarily on the said post under Standing
• Order 32 of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. In its counter F
affidavit the respondent-Corporation averred that the appellant was
considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee but he was not found
fit for promotion. Therefore, he was reverted to his original post.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD : 1. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the High
Court. The right conferred under Standing Order 32 of Maharashtra State
t
Road Transport Corporation on a candidate appointed temporarily, is that
if no direct recruit is available even after making a fresh attempt, he must be
considered for substantive promotion. The appellant was in fact considered H
463
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 3 S.C.R.

A for regular promotion but he was not found fit; therefore, the reversion cannot
be said to be in breach of Standing Order 32(a). However, this order does
not preclude the authorities from considering his case for promotion to the
said post in future in accordance with law. [466-G-H; 467-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2937 of
B 2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.2000 of the Mumbai High -;.__
Court in W.P. No. 3216 of 1998.

A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant.
c
Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, R.S. Hegde, S. Shanna,
Prashant Jain and P.P. Singh for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. Leave is granted.
-1.

The order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, in Writ Petition No.3216 of 1998 dated April 6,
2000 is brought und~r challenge by the appellant. By the said order the High
Court cfismissed the. Writ Petition filed by the appellant.
E
The facts giving rise to the petition may be briefly noted to appreciate
the grievance of the appellant. On July 4, 1975, the appellant was initially
appointed as Clerk by the first respondent and thereafter as Assistant Works
Superintendent from direct sector in the month of June 1979. He passed ...
promotional examination and became eligible for consideration for promotion
F to the post of Depot Manager 'A' I Assistant Mechanical Engineer in July
1985. On September 5, 1994, he was temporarily promoted as Depot Manager
'A' Junior(M)/Assistant Mechanical Engineer in Class II Junior Grade. On
August 28, 1998, he was, however, reverted to his original post of Senior rr
Foreman. He assailed the validity of the said order in the aforementioned writ
G petition before the High Court. By the impugned order the said writ petition
was dismissed.
-+
Mr. A.K. Sanghi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
contended that as the post of Depot Manager 'A' was not filled up on regular
basis the appellant was entitled to continue temporarily on the said post
H having regard to the tenns of his promotion.

.,
S.F ISLAM,.. MAHARASHT~A STATE ROAD TRANS. CORPN. [S.S.M. QUADR!, J] 465

It may be appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of the terms of the A
order of promotion of the appellant which reads as under :

"General Establishment Order No. 325(SB) of 1994

The following Sr. Foreman/Assistant Works Superintendent are
temporarily promoted as Depot Manager(A) Jr.(M)/Assistant B
Mechanical Engineer in Class II Jr. Grade of Rs. 2200-3700 and on

-
promotion posted to the Regions mentioned against their names in
Col.(4) below :-

S. No. Name and Present Place Region to
Designation of posting which posted c
on promotion

1 to 14 ••• ••• •••
- 15 Shri LS. Fakhrul
Sr. Foreman,
Wardha Divn. Amravati
Region D
16 to 18 ... ••• •••
2. The promotion of above A WS/Sr.Foreman is on temporary basis
and without prejudice to the seniority of others. This order does nor
confer on them any right of seniority, continuity or preference over E
others.

3. Further, the promotion of the above A WS/Foreman is effected
against the direct sector vacancies and on availability of candidates
from direct sector they will be reverted to their original posts.
F
4. to 6 ••• ••• •••
Sd/- Illegible
for Vice Chainnan & Managing Director
M.S.R.T. Corporation
• G
No. STIEST/SB/1675
Date : 5th September, 1994."

From a perusal of clause (2) it is evident that the promotion of the
appellant was on temporary basis. Clause (3) shows that the promotion was
H
~

466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.{f .R.

A against the direct sector vacancies and on availability of candidates from
direct sector he would be reverted to his original post.

The bone of contention is that under Standing Order 32 M.S.R.T.
Corporation the appellant is entitled to continue till there is a direct recruitment
to the said post. Standing Order 32(a) is in the following terms
B
"32(a). When a suitable candidate is not available for direct recruitment
to a post reserved for direct recruitment, a suitable departmental
candidate may be given a purely temporary promotion lasting up to
such time as a suitable direct recruitment is available for appointment. .....
A fresh attempt shall be made to get a suitable direct recruit by re-
c advertising the post. If after one year from the date of the temporary
appointments of the departmental candidate and even after making a
fresh attempt no suitable direct recruitment is available, the competent
authority may consider the question of making the appointment of
the departmental candidate substantive."
D A perusal of the Standing Order, extracted above, makes it clear that
it deals with a situation when a vacancy reserved for direct recruitment arises
and postulates that : (i) a suitable candidate is not available for direct
recruitment; (ii) till such time a suitable direct recruitment is available for
appointment, a suitable departmental candidate may be promoted temporarily;
E (iii) such temporary promotion will last till such time as a suitable direct
recruitment.is available; (iv) the authorities are under an obligation to make
fresh attempt to get a suitable direct recruit by re-advertising the post; and (v)
if after one year from the date of the temporary appointments of the
departmental candidate and even after making a fresh attempt no suitable
direct recruitment is available, the competent authority may consider the )
F question of making the appointment of the departmental candidate substantive.
+

A perusal of the counter of the respondents discloses that the appellant
was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee in September
1985, December 23, 1986, February l, 1989 and December 31, 1992 but he
was not found fit for promotion. In view of this positioq. the appellant was
G
reverted to his original post. The right conferred, under the aforementioned
Standing Order, on a candidate appointed temporarily, is that if no direct
recruit is available even after making a fresh attempt, he must be considered +
for substantive promotion. The appellant was in fact considered for regular
promotion but he was not found fit; therefore, the reversion cannot be said
H to be in breach of Standing Order 32(a). However, we make it clear that this
-
S.F. ISLAM v. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANS. CORPN. [S.S.M QUADRI, !.] 467

order does not preclude the authorities from considering his case for promotion A
to the said post in future in accordance with law.

Jn this view of the matter we do not find any illegality in the impugned
order of the High Court. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly
dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as
to costs. B
T.N.A Appeal dismissed.

-