ssp 1 WP 101 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.101 OF 2011 Harbhajan Singh Toor .....Petitioner versus The Shipping Corporation of India Limited and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Sujeet G. Kurup with Mr.Shivaji Yadav, for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Talsania, Senior Advocate with Mr.Agnel Carneiro, Ms.Kandran Bhatia i/by Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe, for respondent No.1. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 28th JANUARY, 2011 P.C. : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has made following prayers : (a) That this Hon’ble Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or appropriate Order of Writ, calling upon the respondent No.1 to produce all office memos, Confidential Reports, notes, documents, correspondence for promotions to higher ranks in the office cadre and writings, etc., in respect of promotions given to produce all papers with respect to promotions granted from Deputy Manager’s (now as per restructure Manager) from the year 1997 and further promotions till the end of the year March, 2010 of all the employees/persons (including the tabulation statement of marks counted for promotion including DPC committee marks awarded and list of employees promoted to higher ranks etc., of the respondent No.1 to show their eligibility to take the said benefits from the respondent No. ssp 2 WP 101 of 2011 1; (b) That this Hon’ble Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus or Certiorari and/or appropriate Order of Writ directing the respondent No.1 to provide to the petitioner all his back wages according to the petitioner’s service and promotions if it would have been given at the respective times till the date of retirement i.e. 31-03-2010 as the petitioner was entitled to according to the service rules, regulations and equity; (c) That this Hon’ble Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or appropriate Order of Writ thereby directing the respondent No.1 to deposit and/or pay to the petitioner all the benefits and emoluments that would have been provided/enjoyed by the petitioner if the petitioner would have been promoted at the relevant time and for loss of various amenities, facilities provided by the respondent No. 1 and enjoyed by other employees/officers in the same cadre; (d) That this Hon’ble Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus of Certiorari and/or appropriate Order or Writ and after going through the legality and/or validity and/or propriety of the said promotions of respective employees/officers who have joined at the time of petitioner joined the respondent No.1 if found unlawful, illegal, ultra-vires of the authority and done malafidely and/or with ulterior motive, carried out in such an event this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass necessary order/directions to cancel, terminate, and demote all the said officers/employees from said posts to original post; (e) That this Hon’ble Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or appropriate Order or Writ calling upon the respondent No.1 to produce all records and proceedings together with the approvals, sanctions, orders, permissions ssp 3 WP 101 of 2011 given for promotions to higher rank/post including of the petitioner to verify that there is no violation of equity in service rules and regulations, CDA, by any one of them in passing the orders, sanctions and issuance of promotions, orders permission sanctions to various officers/employees of the respondent No.1, and after going through the legality and/or validity and/or propriety of the said orders, permissions etc., if found against the principles of equity and natural justice, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside all the said orders, promotions, sanctions and/or permission of respondent No.1 in respect of those employees/officers’ (f) That pending the hearing and disposal of the petition herein, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or appropriate Order or Writ, calling upon the respondent No.1 to produce all office memos, confidential reports, notes, documents, correspondence for promotions to higher ranks in the office cadre and writings, etc., in respect of promotions given to produce all papers with respect to promotions granted from Deputy Manager’s (now as per restructure Manager), from the year 1997 and further promotions till the end of the year March, 2010 of all the employees/officers (including the tabulation statement of marks counted for promotions including DPC committee marks awarded and list of employees promoted to higher marks etc.,) of the respondent No.1 to show their eligibility to take the said benefits from the respondent No. 1; (g) Ad-interim or interim order/s in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (f) above be granted; (h) For costs of this petition be provided for; (i) Pass any such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. The petitioner is a retired employee of respondent No.1 Corporation and has retired from the service with effect from 31-03-2010 ssp 4 WP 101 of 2011 from the post of Manager (FCS) EC 1613. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the relevant time his case was not considered for promotion, though he was having good service record and he should have been promoted with retrospective effect. The petitioner have given all the details as to how he was discriminated in the matter of promotion and as to why he was not promoted to higher post. In our view, this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not expected to make fishing inquiry to find out as to whether the petitioner was fit for promotion and as to why he was not considered for promotion. If at the relevant time, the petitioner was not considered for promotion, it was for the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings without waiting for such a long time. It is required to be noted that the petitioner at the fag end of his career, applied in the month of February, 2010 under the Right to Information Act, for obtaining the record for promotional activities and other necessary official record, as his case was not considered for promotion for twelve years. The petition is not required to be entertained on that very ground as such a belated claim cannot be adjudicated by making fishing inquiry in this behalf. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )