(1) 18wp6073.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6073/2025 Shri Bhimrao Pandharinath Chandankhede .Vs. The Nagpur Municipal Corporation, thr. Its Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. S. Sanyal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A. S. Mehadia, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. N. R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.3. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2026 Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 tendered across the bar affidavit of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is taken on record. 2. The petitioner, who was appointed as Divisional Fire Officer, is before the Court seeking promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer. The prayers as put forth read thus: “(a) hold and declare that the respondents do not have any authority to deny the petitioner his legal right to be considered for grant of promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer; (b) hold and declare that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer as he fulfilled all the criteria necessary for being promoted to the said post; (c) hold and declare that the petitioner is liable to be notionally considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer and his post retirement benefits may be fixed in that scale. (d) direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer from 17.03.2024.” 3. As could be seen, the petitioner is seeking relief to consider his candidature for promotion, which according to us, is a legitimate relief claimed by the petitioner. So far as entitlement to promotion, it is well settled that an employee cannot seek promotion as of right. In other words, it is permissible for the employee to say (2) 18wp6073.25 that he is entitled to be considered in the process of promotion but it will be impermissible to say that he should be promoted. Accordingly the aforesaid prayer will be considered. 4. We have heard Mr. S. S. Sanyal, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. A. S. Mehadia, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. N. R. Patil, A.G.P for respondent No.3. 5. In our view, the controversy could be resolved in terms of the rules of promotion. There is no dispute that petitioner was promoted as Divisional Fire Officer (DFO) with effect from 16.03.2021. The rules of promotion of Nagpur Municipal Corporation viz. Fire and Emergency Services Department Officers/Employees (Classification, Recruitment and Promotion) Regulations, 2017 (“Rules”) provides for the quota reserved for promotion as also the eligibility criteria which is annexed as Appendix-2 to the Rules. Perusal of the same show that there is one post for Deputy Chief Fire Officer, which is to be filled in through promotion only for first 5 years. The eligibility for promotion is to have experience of 3 years as DFO. 6. The petitioner's candidature was considered for promotion in Departmental Promotion Committee’s (DPC) meeting dated 26.05.2025. The petitioner is not promoted on the count that the post is available for promotion only for first 5 years and since the Rules came into force in the year 2017, the first 5 years concluded in the year 2022. According to the DPC, subsequent to 5 years, the post could be filled in only by recommendation/deputation. 7. Thus, the question before us is whether petitioner's candidature could have been considered for the purpose of filling in the post by way of promotion. 8. The Rules as framed are quite clear. The post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer can be filled in by way of promotion for first 5 years. The Rules are otherwise silent on the modes of filling in said post after five years but if the Rules are read in context with filling in (3) 18wp6073.25 the other posts, we find that for the post of DFO there are 2 sources; one is by way of recommendation or the direct recruitment and other is by way of promotion. The quota provided in 50% each. The Rules further provide that for the first 5 years, the said posts could be filled in only by way of promotion. Thus, wherever necessary, the Rules provide that the posts can be filled in by way of promotion for a few years and thereafter by various sources. 9. In view of the foregoing, it appears that the post in question could be filled only by way of promotion during the initial period of 5 years, thereby implying that, upon expiry of the said period, the post may or may not be filled by promotion. In the absence of any specific provision governing the manner of filling the post thereafter, due consideration must be given to the decision taken by the DPC. It is for the employer to determine, keeping in view the requirements of the department, the suitability of a candidate for a particular post. Accordingly, the DPC interpreted the Rules in the context of the departmental requirements and rejected the petitioner's candidature on the ground that the post in question was no longer available for promotion after the expiry of the initial period of 5 years. 10. That being so, we do not find any error in the decision taken by the DPC and thus are not inclined to exercise the writ jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kahale Signed by: Kahale Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 13/10/2026 18:48:08