SCA/4170/1990 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4170 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MECHANICAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIA- TION - Petitioner(s) Versus GUJARAT WATER RESOURECES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD & 4 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HB SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. MR PARESH UPADHYAY for Respondent(s) : 4, MR PJ MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 5, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date : 18/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is an association of Mechanical Engineers working with the Gujarat Water SCA/4170/1990 2/4 JUDGMENT Resources Development Corporation Ltd. The dispute relates to the availability of promotional avenues. It appears that besides Mechanical Engineers, Civil Engineers also work with the said Corporation and there is also an association of Civil Engineers working with the Corporation who is respondent no.5 herein. 2. According to the petitioner, the Mechanical Engineers do not get sufficient opportunities/ representation in the promotional cadres as compared to the Civil Engineers whereas in the functioning of the Corporation, the Mechanical Engineers perform greater degree of work and duty. The petitioner, had therefore, made representation to respondent no.1 Corporation and has thus approached this Court making following prayers : “(A)directing the respondent Corporation to prescribe and maintain the ratio of 50 : 50 while effecting promotions to the higher posts between Civil Engineers and Mechanical Engineers serving in the respondent Corporation; (B)directing the respondent Corporation to give promotions to the Mechanical Engineers to the higher posts so as to remove the imbalance in the promotional posts available to the Mechanical Engineers; (C)directing the respondent Corporation to SCA/4170/1990 3/4 JUDGMENT forebear from giving promotion to the Civil Engineers till the ratio of 50:50 prescribed for Mechanical Engineers and Civil Engineers is reached; (D)quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.5.1990 at Annexure `H' so far as it relates to the promotion of respondent nos.2 and 3 to the higher posts. (E)directing the respondent Corporation to act according to law; (F)directing the respondent Corporation to pay costs of this petition to the petitioner.” 3. The prayers in main are for direction on respondent Corporation to prescribe and maintain the ratio of 50:50 while effecting promotions to the higher posts between Civil Engineers and Chemical Engineers and direction on the Corporation to give promotion to the Mechanical Engineers to the higher posts so as to remove imbalance in the promotional post and to quash and set aside the promotional orders of respondent nos.2 and 3. 4. Though sought, interim relief was refused by order dated 21.2.1992. 5. Grant of promotion to a particular cadre or cadres and fixing of a ratio inter se would be SCA/4170/1990 4/4 JUDGMENT matters of policy and cannot ordinarily be subjected to judicial scrutiny. The relief sought by the petitioner, therefore, cannot be granted. 6. Much water has flown since filing of the petition and none of the advocates for the parties are aware about the latest status of the representation claimed to have been made by the petitioner or the rules of promotion, if any. Clear rules or norms for promotion are necessary for smooth working of any institution and it would not be out of the way to hope for a decision on policy of promotion and to hope for a decision on the representation, if any made and received by the respondent no.1 Corporation. 7. Under the above circumstances, the petition does not merit acceptance and stands disposed of as dismissed with the above observations. Rule discharged. No costs. ( A.L.DAVE, J ) srilatha