- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Sequential to the resolution dated May 23, 1974 of the Govt. of Maharashtra to provide reservation for backward classes in promotions, namely Scheduled Castes and of their converts to Buddhism, Scheduled Tribes and the denotified tribes and nomadic tribes at 13%, 7% and 4% respectively in Fifty Point Roster, the first respondent resolved on August 12, 1975 to provide reservation in the services of the Corporation at the stage of promotion. It carried into effect to make promotions on the basis of seniority subject to fitness. During 1980, the Sub-Engineers belonging to reserved classes became eligible, but were not promoted. A representation in that behalf was made to give them appointment by promotion in accordance with the above resolution. Writ Petition No. 176 of 1980 was filed by Vishnu Des Patel and others in a representative capacity questioning the policy of reservation in promotion. Equally Writ Petition No. 968 of 1990 was filed by Manti Lal Mahadev Mane and others in a representative capacity, seeking implementation of the reservation. In the meanwhile the Corporation adopted the principle of interview for considering the claims of the reserved employees for promotion and rejected their claims on that basis. The High Court in its judgment dated March 14-15, 1984 partly allowed the writ petition negativing the reservation in promotion in certain posts and upheld in respect of others. The matter was carried in appeal to this Court. In Writ Petition No. 545 of 1979, by judgment dated April 15, 1984, the High Court upheld that the Corporation cannot introduce the principle of interview and allowed the writ petition. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Mrs. Kalpana Sadhu Kamble (1988) 2 Suppl. SCR 679 upheld the rule of reservation in promotion and by resolution dated March 17, 1979 the Corporation resolved to enforce the rule of reservation in promotion pursuant to the resolution dated September 12, 1975 and resolved that the names of the candidates belonging to backward classes who became eligible for promotion on and from the year 1975 onwards should be included in the deemed select list as per rules after they are declared fit for promotion by the Selection Committee by screening confidential history sheets of the respective employees, if they are not already declared fit by the Promotion Committee. In furtherance thereof, the Corporation prepared seniority wise list of the backward classes employees considered fit for promotion to the post of Asstt, Engineers, as per reservation policy adopted from September 12, 1975 and March 14-15, 1989 and gave the fitment in the vacancies available to them at the respective dates in the roster, but they were not given promotions. Mr. Mane filed a contempt petition in the High Court pursuant to which he was given promotion, but denied the same to the other employees. Consequently the appellant filed writ petition No. 359 of 1993 which the High Court dismissed on April 6, 1993. Thus this appeal by special leave.
(3.) Though notice was issued to the contesting respondents and served on them, they are neither appearing in person, nor represented through a counsel. The Municipal Corporation, pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay's case (supra) gave reservation to the backward class employees in promotions namely Scheduled Castes. Scheduled Tribes and denotified Tribes and Nomadic Tribes at the percentage mentioned in their circulars pursuant to the Resolution No. 567 dt. Sept. 12, 1975. They have also stated in paragraph 4 therein that the candidates belong to the backward classes who became eligible for promotion in the year 1975 and onwards should be included in the deemed select list as per the rules, after they are declared fit for promotion by the Promotion Committee, by screening the Confidential sheets of the respective employees. If they are already declared fit for promotion by the Promotion Committee, the exercise need not be reiterated. Pursuant to that, the respondent Corporation prepared the memo in which they have stated that they have worked out, pursuant to Circular of the Bombay Municipal Corporation dated August 14, 1989, the persons who are eligible to be considered for promotion and the papers have been submitted to the Commissioner on March 19, 1990 for approval and the approval was awaited. They have also stated to a representation made by the appellants that they are still awaiting the approval from the Commissioner. In the letter of the City Engineer, February 6, 1992 since promotion was not given to them and similar benefit was extended to one Mr. Mani co-employee belonging to the backward class, they have filed the above writ petition but denied the relief on the ground of delay as well on the ground that from 19-7-82, the policy of the promotion had been withdrawn and the appellants are not entitled to the promotion.;