1 2575.10 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2575 OF 2010 Priti P.Padwal ...Petitioner Versus The High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Sanjeev Sawant for Petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Udeshi i/b Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Respondent No.1. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED:- MARCH 23, 2011. P.C. 1. The grievance in this Petition is that although the petitioner’s case was accepted by the Advisory Committee of the Family Court as mentioned in the communication dated 2nd January, 2008 to the effect that she may be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent/Sheristedar as and when vacancy for that post would arise, however, the petitioner’s case was finally rejected. The grievance clearly overlooks the mandate of Rule 5 of the Statutory Rules. The said Rules are framed in exercise of powers under Section 6 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 named as the Maharashtra Family 2 2575.10 Court (Non-Gazetted Post Recruitment) Rules, 2002. The said Rules have already come into force. As per Rule 5, the appointment to the post of Sheristedar (lower grade)/senior clerk (lower grade) and Assistant Superintendent is by promotion of a suitable person from amongst the persons holding post of Assistant Sheristedar/Assistant Cashier. The petitioner, however, was promoted from the post of Assistant Sheristedar to interpretor. Therefore, she would be ineligible to be considered for promotion directly to the post of Sheristedar. For that reason, the High Court had to intervene and informed the Principal Judge of the Family Court that the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected. No fault can be found with the said decision of the High Court which is in consonance with the provisions of the statutory Rules. 2. The argument of the petitioner, however, is that, the said Rules have come into force only with effect from 17th January, 2009. Therefore, the same cannot be the basis to deny her claim of promotion which enured in earlier point of time. We are not impressed with this argument. The letter Exhibit `F’ dated 17th January, 2009 cannot be the basis to hold that the statutory Rules came into force from the date of the said communication. Whereas, the Rules have already come into force soon after the publication 3 2575.10 thereof in the Official Gazette on 25th April, 2003 itself. The claim of the Applicant is not anterior to the said date. 3. The next argument of the petitioner is that three other persons are already promoted from the post of interpreter to the post of Sheristedar/Superintendent after 2003, in particular, after September, 2004. If those appointments/promotion are not in consonance with the statutory rules, that cannot be the basis to extend benefit to the petitioner, as is claimed. As a matter of fact, it is a matter to be inquired into by the Appropriate Authority as to how the said permissions/appointment of ineligible persons to the post of Superintendent/Sheristedar have been made by the Family Court and direct to the Family Court to take corrective action forthwith to bring it in consonance with the requirement of statutory rules of 2002. The Registrar General of the High Court shall take necessary measures in this behalf forthwith. 4. In view of the above, no case is made out in this Petition. The same is dismissed. 4 2575.10 5. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Registrar General for information and necessary action. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)