Bombay High Court
Milind Kashiram Gaikwad vs The Union Of India And Others on 9 December, 2025
Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
2025:BHC-AUG:36432-DB
954 WRIT PETITION NO. 5983 OF 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
954 WRIT PETITION NO. 5983 OF 2017
Milind Kashiram Gaikwad
Age - ___ Years, Occupatioin - Service
R/o. Railway Quarter No. D/22,
Tapi Road Bhusawal,
Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgoan. ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Union of India
Through The Secretary,
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi,
2. The Secretary
The Railway Ministry,
Government of India, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3. The General Manager
Central Railway, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus,
Mumbai.
4. The Chief Personnel Officer
General Manager Office,
Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus,
Mumbai. ...RESPONDENTS
________________________________________________________________
• Adv. Madhav M. Bhokarikar for the Petitioner
• Adv. Manish N. Navandar, Advocate for all Respondents
________________________________________________________________
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
VAISHALI PATIL - JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 09.12.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.]
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
komal kamble 1/7954 WRIT PETITION NO. 5983 OF 2017
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Bombay Bench (for short, "the Tribuanal") in OA No. 108/2006 dated 24.02.2011 and in RA No. 7/2011 dated 05.07.2012. The petitioner further seeks direction to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to give him "deemed date of promotion" with effect from 05.10.2024.
3. We have heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the respondents. Perused the writ petition memo, grounds urged therein, annexures thereto, the impugned judgment & order and the written notes submitted on behalf of the petitioner along with citations as well as the replies filed by the respondents.
4. It is evident from the record that the petitioner was originally appointed as Divisional Statistical Inspector in the year 1982. Thereafter, he was promoted as Junior Clerk in 1984, Senior Clerk in 1985, Statistical Inspector Grade-III in 1992, Statistical Inspector Grade- II in 1993 and Statistical Inspector Grade-I in 1997. Thereafter, he was expecting promotion to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer (for short, "APO"), which is a Group "B" cadre post.
5. The respondents notified selection process on 26.04.2004 for selection of 11 APOs - 10 in the General category and 1 in komal kamble 2/7 954 WRIT PETITION NO. 5983 OF 2017 Scheduled Tribe category. The selection was to be made by promotion from Group "C" against 70% LGS Quota. The written examination was conducted on 21.08.2004 and supplementary written examination was held on 12.09.2004. 19 candidates out of 210 were declared qualified by notification dated 21.09.2004, which depicted integrated seniority list of qualified candidates. A revised integrated seniority list was issued on 29.09.2004. The viva voce test of all the 10 eligible candidates was held on 01.10.2004. They were also subjected to medical examination. On the basis of their performance, 10 candidates were empanelled on 05.10.2004 for promotion against the General category posts, and no candidate was found suitable for posting against Scheduled Tribe vacancy.
6. The petitioner, though had qualified in the written test and was subjected to the medical test and viva voce test, did not find his name in the panel of 10 selected candidates. He, therefore, preferred a representation dated 29.11.2004 to Respondent No. 3. The petitioner contended that he was ranked 4th in the combined seniority list and had possessed suitable higher qualification in consideration of which along with his performance in the competitive examination, he should have been selected. By communication dated 04.05.2005, the petitioner was informed that he was not found suitable for the post of APO and, therefore, he was not empanelled. The petitioner, therefore, approached komal kamble 3/7 954 WRIT PETITION NO. 5983 OF 2017 the Tribunal, challenging the action of the respondents of denying promotion to him. The Tribunal after considering the record and arguments has rejected the original application of the petitioner. This order is impugned in the present petition.
7. It is evident from the record that the petitioner has secured following marks in the selection process :
Heads Maximum Minimum Marks
Qualifying Obtained
Marks by
Petitioner
Written test 150 90 94
(Professional ability)
Record of Service 25 15 } 16 }
} }
Viva-Voce 25 } 30 8 }24
Total 200 120 118
Since the petitioner could not secure minimum qualifying marks, he was not empanelled.
8. The issue raised of by the petitioner that he was not given marks in accordance with the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (for short, "IREM") while evaluating his record of service is rightly dealt with by the Tribunal by observing that the petitioner is relying on the provisions of paragraphs 204 and 219 of IREM and the directives issued thereunder. However, those paragraphs and Exhibits A-1 and A-2 relied komal kamble 4/7 954 WRIT PETITION NO. 5983 OF 2017 upon by the petitioner were found to be dealing with promotion from Group "C" to Group "B" posts. Section B of Chapter II contains "Rules Governing the Promotion of Group 'C' Staff", incorporating Rules 210 to Rule 228, all dealing with the promotions within Group "C" cadre. Since, the case of the petitioner is of promotion to Group "B" post, those rules cannot be held applicable to the case of the petitioner.
9. Another point raised by the petitioner is, in spite of he being senior Scheduled Caste candidate, he was superseded. Though the petitioner belongs from Scheduled Caste category, he applied from General category. It appears from the record that petitioner was eligible to be promoted to the post of APO in the selection process notified by the respondents. However, there was no vacancy in the Scheduled Caste category, to which the petitioner belongs.
10. In the written test, the petitioner has scored 94 marks out of
150. Since the qualifying marks were 94, he was held eligible to appear for viva voce test. He has also undergone medical test. However, in the viva voce test he scored 8 marks out of 25, and in the segment of record of service, he scored 16 marks out of 25. Therefore, though the petitioner had scored more than required minimum marks 15 in the segment of record of service, he scored only 24 marks in the combined segment of record of service and viva voce test, when he was required komal kamble 5/7 954 WRIT PETITION NO. 5983 OF 2017 to score minimum 30 marks in the said combined segment. Because of which the petitioner failed to qualify in the selection process. Fact remains that, for non-securing minimum qualifying 120 marks, he was otherwise disqualified.
11. In this view of the matter, and since the Tribunal has elaborately dispelled the challenges raised by the petitioner in its detailed judgment, we do not find any merit in the petition challenging the decision of the Tribunal. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal.
12. The petitioner also filed review petition before the Tribunal, which is dismissed by the Tribunal by reasoned order dated 05.07.2012. Apart from the above, the petitioner also suffers from delay and latches, as the decisions of the Tribunal dated 24.02.2011 and 05.07.2012 are challenged by the petitioner by filing the present petition on 25.04.2017. For the delay of almost 5 years, a cryptic explanation is given in the petition, stating that the petitioner chose to pursue respondent authority, his employer, so as to avoid further disputes between himself and his employer. Considering the dominant position of the employer in the light of the case of employee, this would certainly be sufficient, proper and correct reason for condoning the delay, if any, and the same would be sufficient, correct and proper explanation for delay, if there is no any komal kamble 6/7 954 WRIT PETITION NO. 5983 OF 2017 delay for preferring this petition against the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai. This cannot be said to be sufficient ground for condoning inordinate delay of almost 5 years in challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. The citations relied upon by the petitioner are rendered in different facts and are of no help to the case of the petitioner.
13. Admittedly, the petitioner is promoted as APO in the year 2006.
14. For the aforestated reasons, we find no merit in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
[VAISHALI PATIL - JADHAV, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] komal kamble 7/7