# VISHWAS ANNA SAWANT AND ORS v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1994] 3 S.C.R. 656
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1994-04-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4073 of 1994
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, N. Venkatachala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vishwas-anna-sawant-and-ors-v-municipal-corporation-of-greater-bombay-and-ors-12145
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 16 and 46-Backward dassesReservation in promoti01t-Municipal corporation Resolution dated September 12, 1975-Benefit of-Grant to one employee and denial to other~eld
C unjustified.
By a resolution dated September 12, 1975 the respondent- Municipal
Corporation resolved to provide reservation for backward classes in
promotions. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & ors. v. Mrs.
Kalpana Sadhu Kamble & Ors., [1988) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 679, this Court
D upheld the rule of reservation in promotions. Consequently, the corporation. resolved to enforce the rule of reservation in promotions and decided
that the names of candidates belonging to backward classes who became
eligible for promotion from 1975 onwards would be included in the deemed
select list as per rules after they were declared fit for promotion by
E Selection Committee. Accordingly, the Corporation prepared· a
senioritywise list or the backward classes employees considered fit for
promotion to the post of Asstt. Engineers and gave the fitment in the
vacancies available to them at the respective dates in the roster, but they
were not given promotion. M, an employee approached the High Court for
granting the relief in a writ petition which was filed in a representative
F capacity not only for himself but also for all backward class citizens. He
was given the benefit or promotion, when he initiated the contempt
proceedings, bnt when the appellants approached the High Court by an
independent writ petition, the same benefit was not given to them. They
preferred appeal before this Court.
G
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court,
this Court
HELD : 1. the right to consideration for promotion is a fundamental
right guaranteed to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in fulfilment of
H the mandate under Article 16(1) read with Article 46 of the Constitution
656
' '
.-
V.ASAWANT v. MUNICIPALCORPN. BOMBAY
657
to render socio-economic justice. The corporation is enjoined to give effect A
> \
to the constitutional mandate. (659-G-H)
·•
,
'
2. The High Court was not justified in refusing relief to the appellants. The appellants stand in the same position as M and therefore the
Corporation cannot take a different and inconsistent stand denying
promotion to the appellants who stand on par with M. Appellants were B
nor declared unfit for promotion by any resolution passed by the Corporation Promotion Committee or competent officer. On the other hand the
Corporation relied on the interview conducted by it, which method or
principle was declared by the High Court to be illegal. Under these
circumsta11ces, the . action of the respondent-Corporation in not giving C
promotion to the appellants to the post of Asstt. Engineers from the post
of Sub-Engineers is clearly illegal. (659-E, 660-A-C]
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. v. Mrs. Kalpana
Sadhu Kamole & Ors., (1988) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 678, referred to.

## Text

A
VISHWAS ANNA SAWANT AND ORS.
v.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS.
APRIL 22, 1994
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 16 and 46-Backward dassesReservation in promoti01t-Municipal corporation Resolution dated September 12, 1975-Benefit of-Grant to one employee and denial to other~eld
C unjustified.
By a resolution dated September 12, 1975 the respondent- Municipal
Corporation resolved to provide reservation for backward classes in
promotions. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & ors. v. Mrs.
Kalpana Sadhu Kamble & Ors., [1988) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 679, this Court
D upheld the rule of reservation in promotions. Consequently, the corporation. resolved to enforce the rule of reservation in promotions and decided
that the names of candidates belonging to backward classes who became
eligible for promotion from 1975 onwards would be included in the deemed
select list as per rules after they were declared fit for promotion by
E Selection Committee. Accordingly, the Corporation prepared· a
senioritywise list or the backward classes employees considered fit for
promotion to the post of Asstt. Engineers and gave the fitment in the
vacancies available to them at the respective dates in the roster, but they
were not given promotion. M, an employee approached the High Court for
granting the relief in a writ petition which was filed in a representative
F capacity not only for himself but also for all backward class citizens. He
was given the benefit or promotion, when he initiated the contempt
proceedings, bnt when the appellants approached the High Court by an
independent writ petition, the same benefit was not given to them. They
preferred appeal before this Court.
G
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court,
this Court
HELD : 1. the right to consideration for promotion is a fundamental
right guaranteed to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in fulfilment of
H the mandate under Article 16(1) read with Article 46 of the Constitution
656
' '
.-
V.ASAWANT v. MUNICIPALCORPN. BOMBAY
657
to render socio-economic justice. The corporation is enjoined to give effect A
> \
to the constitutional mandate. (659-G-H)
·•
,
'
2. The High Court was not justified in refusing relief to the appellants. The appellants stand in the same position as M and therefore the
Corporation cannot take a different and inconsistent stand denying
promotion to the appellants who stand on par with M. Appellants were B
nor declared unfit for promotion by any resolution passed by the Corporation Promotion Committee or competent officer. On the other hand the
Corporation relied on the interview conducted by it, which method or
principle was declared by the High Court to be illegal. Under these
circumsta11ces, the . action of the respondent-Corporation in not giving C
promotion to the appellants to the post of Asstt. Engineers from the post
of Sub-Engineers is clearly illegal. (659-E, 660-A-C]
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. v. Mrs. Kalpana
Sadhu Kamole & Ors., (1988) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 678, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4073 of
1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.93 of the Bombay High
Court in W .P. No. 359 of 1993.
Ms. Indira Jaising and Sanjay Parikh, for the Appellants.
N.B. Shetye and D.N. Misra for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered : .
Leave granted.
D
E
F
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 an nomadic tribes al 13%, 7% and 4% G
respe.otively in Fifty Point Roster, the first respondent resolved on August
12, 1975 to proved 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 H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] 3 S.C.R.
A
in that behalf was made to give them appointment by promotion in accord·
ance 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
B capacity, seeking implementation of the reservation. In the meljllwhile 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
C
to this Court. In Writ Petition No. 545 of 1979, by judgment dated April
15, 1984, the High Court upheld that the Corporation carmot introduce the
principle of interview and allowed the writ petition. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. v. Mrs. Kalpana Sadhu Kamble & Ors., [1988]
Suppl. 2 SCR 679, upheld the rule of reservation in promotion and by
D 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 in and from the year
1975 onward should be included in the deemed select list as per rules after
they are declared fit for promotion by the Selection Committee by screenE ing confidential history sheets of the respective employees, if they are not
already declared fit by the Promotion Committee. In furtherance thereof,
the Corporation prepared senioritywise list of the backward classes
employees considered fit for promotion to th~ post of Asstt. Engineers, as
per reservation policy adopted from September 12, 1975 and March 14-15,
F
G
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.
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 gave reservation
H to the backward class employees in promotions namely Scheduled Caste~.
j
V.A.SAWANT v. MUNIC!PALCORPN.BOMBAY
659
Scheduled Tribes and denotified Tribes an Nomadic Tribes at the percentA
>· \
age mentioned in their circulars pursuant to the Resolution No. 567 dt.
Sept. U,
1975. They have also stated in paragraph 4 theirin that the
candidates belong to the backward classes who became eligible for promotion in the year 1975 and onwards should be inclnded in the deemed select
list as per the rules, after they are declared fit for Promotion by the B
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 C
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 D
was not given to them and similar benefit was extended to one Mr. Mane
co-employee belonging to the backward class, they have filed the above
writ petition but denied the retie! 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.
E
We have heard the counsel on both sides and we find that the High
Court was not justified in refusing relief to the appellants. It is seen that
pursuant to the resolution referred to above, there was no independent
exercise done by the Corporation declaring the appellants not fit for
promotion. On the other hand, they were noted in the sheets prepared by F
them which is marked as Statement 'Tin the S.L.P. paper book that instead
of conducting fresh exercise, they relied on the screening done in 1976,
1980 etc. and they reiterated that they are not found fit. That is the
justification now sought to be given by the respondent in not giving promotion to the appellants. We find that the stand taken by them is wholly
unjustified. The right to consideration for promotion is a fundamental right G
guaranteed to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in fulfilment of the
mandate under Art. 16(1) read with Art. 46 of the Constitution to render
socio- economic justice. This court has upheld the said right in Mrs.
Kalpana Sadhu Kamb/e's case. Thereby the Corporation is enjoined to give
the effect to the constitutional mandate. It is seen that when Mr. Mane had H
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] 3 S.C.R.
A
approached the High Court for granting the relief in the previous writ
petition which was filed in a representative capacity not only for him,,elf
but also for all backward class citizens, he was given the benefit of promotion, when he initiated the contempt proceedings. But when the appellants
had approached the High Court by an independent writ petition, the same
B
c
benefit was not given to them. The appellants stand in the same position
as Mane and that therefore the Corporation cannot take a different and
inconsistent stand denying promotion to the appellants who stand on par
with Mane. It is seen from the record that they were not declared unfit for
promotion hy any resolution passed by the Corporation Promotion Committee or competent officer. On the other hand the Corporation relied on
the interview conducted by it, which method or principle was declared by
the High Court to be illegal. Under these circumstances, the action of the
respondent-corporation in not giving promotion to the appellants to the
posts of Asstt. Engineers from the Posts of Sub-Engineers is clearly ille,gal.
The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. The Writ
D
Petition is allowed as prayed for and respondent-Corporation is directed
to give promotion to the appellants with all consequential benefits w.e.f.
April 24, 1980 from the deemed dates which the Corporation itself had
assigned. The parties are directed to bear their owo costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed.
).