- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3276 OF 2002 ... Ms.Padmaja Narhari Bansod and 44 others ...Petitioners v/s. 1. The Secretary, Urban Development Dept., 2. Pune Mahanagar Palika & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.K.S.Bapat for the Petitioners. Ms.S.S.Bhende AGP for the State. Mr.R.G.Ketkar for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 30TH JANUARY, 2008 - 2 - P.C.: 1. By this Petition the Petitioners challenge the action of the Municipal Corporation deciding to revert the the Petitioners to their original post and cancelling their promotion. 2. The admitted position is that the Petitioners were working in clerical cadre under the Municipal Corporation. According to qualification prescribed by the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, for getting promotion the Petitioners ought to have been graduate. But it appears that the General Body of the Corporation passed a resolution dated 24-10-1994 proposing amendments in the qualification and now permitting even non-graduate to be promoted to the higher post. The Petitioners admittedly are all non-graduate. It is obvious from the Resolution of the Corporation dated 24-10-1994 that the Corporation was aware that the Corporation can merely propose amendment in the qualification and the amendment amendments does not take effect unless it - 3 - is approved by the State Government. But the General Body decided that the Corporation should go ahead with the promotions in accordance with the proposed modified rules on the assumption that the State Government will grant approval to the proposal for modification in the rules. Acting on that resolution the petitioners were promoted. Thereafter, the Corporation followed the procedure required by the law for modifying the rules and submitting the proposal to the State Government. Before the State Government could decide either to approve or not to approve the modification proposed by the resolution of the General Body referred to above, the General Body passed a resolution dated 27-12-2000 rescinding its earlier resolution No.174 dated 24-10-1994. It appears that the Commissioner submitted a proposal to the State Government under Section 451 recommending to the State Government that the Government should not permit the General Body to rescind its earlier resolution No.174. The Government, however, by letter dated 5-2-2001 rejected the proposal. The result was that the General Body resolution dated 27-12-2000 rescinding the General Body resolution No.431 remained in force. Perusal of the provisions of the Act shows according to provisions of Section - 4 - 457 the conditions of services including mode of appointment to the Corporation service are governed by the Rules. Perusal of the provisions of Section 454 read with Chapter III of the Schedule, especially Rule 3 thereof, the qualification for appointment of various posts under the Corporation are to be laid down by the Corporation with the approval of the State Government. The Corporation with the approval of the State Government had laid down qualification and according to those Rules for getting promotions from the clerical cadre, it was necessary that the candidate should be graduate, at least for filling in 50% of the posts by promotion. The Corporation decided to modify that rule and therefore, Resolution No.174 dated 24-10-1994 was passed and because of that Resolution the Petitioners were promoted. Had the State Government approved the modification, then probably the promotions given to the Petitioners could have been regularised. But now it is common ground that the State Government has never approved the modification proposed by the Resolution of the General Body, No.174 dated 24-10-1994. Therefore, the fact remains that the promotions to the Petitioners to the higher posts were contrary to the Rules and therefore, no right in the Petitioners was - 5 - created by the order of their promotion, because the order of promotion was contrary to the existing Rules. Even today, according to existing Rules, the Petitioners are not qualified for promotion. 3. In our opinion, therefore, the Corporation was perfectly justified in reverting the Petitioners to their original posts, especially in view of the General Body Resolution dated 27-12-2000 rescinding earlier Resolution No.174 dated 24-10-1994. Thus, we find no substance in the petition, as according to us the Corporation was perfectly justified in ordering reversion of the Petitioners. 4. The Petition,thus, fails and is dismissed. However, as the Petitioners have actually worked in the promotional posts from the date of their promotion till the date of their reversion, the Corporation shall not recover any salary from them for the period they were working in the promotional posts. Petition disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M.KANADE, J.)