( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6297 OF 2008 Ahmednagar Municipal Council, now Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar, through its Commissioner PETITIONER VERSUS Duryodhan Namdeo Vairal and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. K.N. Lokhande, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.N. Upadhye, advocate for the respondent No. 1. Mr. D.P. Bakshi, advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 22nd January, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Mazdoor somewhere in 1983 on establishment of the respondents No. 2 and 3. He was subsequently appointed as Galni- Parichar while he was working with the respondents No. 2 and 3. The scheme of Water Filtration and Supply was ( 2 ) handed over to the petitioner – Municipal Council on 01-07-1999. Obviously, the respondent No.1’s services came to be transferred to the establishment of the petitioner. He filed a complaint (ULP) No. 199/1999 before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, alleging that he was erroneously denied promotional post of “Galni- Nirikshak” (Filter Inspector). He alleged that the respondent No. 4 was wrongly promoted to the said post though he was senior to the respondent No. 4. The Industrial Court held that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to get promotion as “Galni- Nirikshak” (Filter Inspector). One Akolkar was working on the said promotional post. He had retired on 01-03-2006 and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 was directed to be promoted w.e.f. 01-03-2006. The Industrial Court also held that the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to get salary of the promotional post for period between 24-06-1999 to 28-02-2006 though deemed date of promotion was given as 24-06-1999 on which he was eligible and entitled to get said post. 3. The only question is whether the respondent No. ( 3 ) 1 was eligible for the promotion post or that he could not be appointed on the said post. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No. 1 was ineligible because he was only a matriculate and moreover, was not recruited by adopting due procedure. He would submit that the respondent No.1 could not be promoted unless his initial appointment was regular and that he was duly qualified. I find it difficult to countenance the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. First, the respondent No. 1 was regularized in service before the Water Filtration and Distribution Scheme was transferred to the petitioner – Municipal Council. His initial recruitment on establishment of the respondents No. 2 and 3 was never subject matter of challenge. He was not working as a daily wager with the respondents No. 2 and 3 at the time when the Scheme of Water Filtration and Distribution was taken over by the petitioner. He was on the pay-roll of the respondents No. 2 and 3 as “Galani-Parichar”. So far as the eligibility is concerned, it appears that the criteria for promotion is settled in accordance with the report of a Committee appointed for the purpose of ( 4 ) considering the qualifications and requirements for such purpose. The copy of the report is temporarily made available for perusal. On consideration of the para 4.3.11 of Chapter-IV of the Report, it is amply clear that the Filter Inspector is the post on which a person can be appointed by promotion from the employees working on the establishment or if the post is not to be filled in by promotion, then by direct recruitment. For the purpose of direct recruitment, however, educational qualification required is that the candidate must be a science graduate with Chemistry as a subject and ought to have obtained 50 per cent marks. The educational qualification is not, however, the criteria if the post is to be filled by way of promotion. It is pertinent to notice that the experience itself is regarded as qualification and, therefore, perhaps, no such criteria of the candidate being a science graduate is provided for when the post is to be filled by way of promotion. Nobody can deny that long term experience in any field can be regarded as added advantage or sufficient criteria in preference to mere passing of a particular examination. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ( 5 ) substantial error committed by the Industrial Court while allowing the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1. No interference in the impugned judgement is called for. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp6297-08