:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6859 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6859 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6859 OF 2008 Along with Along with Along with Civil Application No.324 of 2009 Civil Application No.324 of 2009 Civil Application No.324 of 2009 State of Maharashtra, .. Petitioner. Vs Shri M.M.Rathod and ors. .. Respondents. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6009 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6009 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6009 OF 2008 Along with Along with Along with Civil Application No.323 of 2009 Civil Application No.323 of 2009 Civil Application No.323 of 2009 Union Public Service Commission, Petitioner Vs. Shri M.M.Rathod & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr C.J.Sawant, Sr.Advocate, a/w Mr Mohan Sudame, Mr Ramakant Paranjpe and Mr S.A.Vaidya, for the applicant in C.A.Nos.324/09 & 323/09 and respondent no.1 in both W.P.Nos.6009/08 and 6859/08. Mr Vinay Masurkar, GP, for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6009/08, (C.A.No.323/09). Mr S.R.Nargolkar, AGP, for petitioner in W.P.No.6859/08 (CA no.324/09). CORAM : S.B.MHASE & CORAM : S.B.MHASE & CORAM : S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE : 27.02.2009. DATE : 27.02.2009. DATE : 27.02.2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. These writ petitions appeared before this Court for hearing of the Civil Applications, but with the consent of the parties, both the petitions are taken up for final disposal. :2: :2: :2: 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The order dated 7.5.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Original Application No.432 of 2007, is challenged in both these petitions by the respective petitioners. 3. The Original Application was instituted by respondent no.1-Shri M.M.Rathod, who was an IPS cadre since 2002. It appears that the said officer was involved in a criminal proceedings pending before the Sessions Court, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.1 of 1983. He was acquitted in 1988. However, thereafter, it appears that Criminal Appeal Nos 502 of 1988 and 883 of 1988 were preferred, which appeals were disposed of by an order dated 16.7.2003 and thus the criminal prosecution, which started in 1983, ended by 2003. It appears that after acquittal, respondent no.1 was reinstated and was considered for promotion and was granted promotion to the IPS cadre. But having realised that his batch-mates and even the juniors have been promoted long back, he made a representation that the earlier promotions be reviewed and he should be considered for promotion to the IPS cadre in the year 1987. However, his claim was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for such review in the IPS Rules. 4. Apart from these facts, there is a checkered :3: :3: :3: history. We need not go into it. But since his promotion in the IPS cadre was not considered by the petitioners, he ultimately filed the Original Application referred to above. While deciding the said Original Application in favour of respondent no.1, the Central Administrative Tribunal has observed that respondent no.1 is entitled for promotion to IPS in 1987 and, therefore, he should be considered. Such are the directions given. Now, counsel on both sides have fairly conceded before this Court that the observation in the order that the respondent no.1-original applicant in the Original Application is entitled for the promotion, is not a correct observation since the Tribunal has no such power. Both the learned counsel submit that suitability of the candidate for the promotion is a matter to be considered by the UPSC and the State Government by the Selection Committee in accordance with the Rules and it is not for the Tribunal to consider the same. Thus, the counsel for both sides state that the Judgment delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal is not proper and requested to this Court that the judgment may be set aside. Mr Masurkar, learned Government pleader for the petitioners, submitted that to consider respondent no.1 for the promotion to IPS cadre is the power of :4: :4: :4: the petitioners and the petitioners will consider it in accordance with law and, therefore, he submitted that the order may be set aside and further direction to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to IPS cadre in 1987-1988 and subsequent years be left for consideration of the petitioners and the Committee constituted according to law. Respondent no.1 has no objection for such course being adopted by this Court and also by the petitioners. 5. In view of the concession given by both the sides, we set aside the impugned order and also the observations made in the said judgment by the Central Administrative Tribunal and we direct the petitioners in both the petitions to consider the case of respondent no.1 Mr M.M.Rathod for a promotion in the IPS cadre for the year 1987-1988 by constituting properly a Selection Committee under the Rules. The petitioners shall consider the claim of respondent no.1 for promotion to the IPS cadre as directed above, within a period of three months. With these directions, both the petitions are disposed of. . All other Civil Applications pending in the petitions as on today, are disposed of in view of disposal of both the petitions. :5: :5: :5: (D.B.BHOSALE.J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE.J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE.J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)