Bombay High Court Restores Pune Municipal Corporation’s Junior Engineer Promotion Process, Holds New Service Rules Cannot Defeat an Ongoing Selection
Bombay High Court Quashes Pune Municipal Corporation’s Cancellation of Junior Engineer Promotion Process; Holds Rules Cannot Be Changed Midway After Selection Is 99% Complete
Facts
A batch of writ petitions was filed by employees of the Pune Municipal Corporation, mainly Class III and Class IV employees, challenging the PMC’s decision dated 11 June 2025 cancelling the promotion process for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The promotion process had originally been initiated by Circular dated 29 January 2021 under the PMC Service Rules, 2014. Under those rules, 75% posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) were to be filled by direct recruitment and 25% by promotion. The mode of promotion was seniority-cum-merit, and the eligibility requirement was Degree/Diploma in Civil Engineering along with five years’ service in PMC.
After the process commenced, PMC published draft seniority lists of eligible employees on 3 December 2021 and again on 31 May 2023. However, before final promotion orders were issued, the State Government issued a Government Resolution dated 14 December 2023 amending the PMC Service Rules. The amended rules reduced the promotion quota from 25% to 15%, changed the qualification requirement to “full-time” Degree/Diploma in Civil Engineering, and replaced seniority-cum-merit with selection through examination.
PMC thereafter cancelled the earlier promotion process by order dated 11 June 2025, stating that the process would have to be conducted under the amended 2023 rules. The employees challenged this cancellation before the Bombay High Court.
Issues
The principal issue before the Court was whether PMC could cancel a promotion process initiated under the 2014 Service Rules after it had substantially progressed, merely because new rules were subsequently introduced in 2023.
The Court also considered whether the amended rules could be applied retrospectively to an ongoing promotion process, and whether changing the quota, eligibility criteria and selection method midway violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that the promotion process had commenced on 29 January 2021 and had substantially progressed under the 2014 Rules. Draft seniority lists were published, eligible employees were identified, and the process was almost complete. Therefore, PMC could not cancel the process and apply new rules introduced much later.
They submitted that the amended 2023 rules could not be applied to the ongoing selection process because doing so would change the “rules of the game” midway. The petitioners relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, which held that once a recruitment process begins, eligibility criteria cannot be changed midway unless permitted by the existing rules and unless such change satisfies Article 14.
The petitioners further argued that PMC had acted arbitrarily by completing direct recruitment with haste while keeping the promotional quota in limbo. According to them, this prejudiced existing employees because direct recruits would gain seniority while eligible promotees were denied timely promotion.
Respondent’s Arguments
PMC opposed the petitions and contended that no final promotion orders had been issued before the amended rules came into force. Therefore, according to PMC, the vacancies remained unfilled and the governing rules at the time of actual consideration would apply.
PMC relied on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar to argue that vacancies need not always be filled according to the rules existing on the date when the vacancies arose, and that the employer could apply the rules in force at the time of consideration.
PMC also contended that the decision to apply the amended 2023 rules was a policy decision and that the petitioners had no vested right to promotion merely because their names appeared in the draft seniority list.
Analysis of the Law
The Court held that the case was not merely about vacancies arising before amendment of rules. It was a case where a promotion process had already commenced under the 2014 Rules, eligible candidates had been identified, seniority lists had been published, and PMC itself admitted that the process was almost 99% complete before the rules were amended.
The Court held that in such a situation, the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that the process would be taken to its logical conclusion under the rules existing when the process commenced. The amended 2023 rules could not be used to defeat an ongoing process that was substantially complete.
The Court found that PMC had followed two different standards: it quickly filled direct recruitment posts but delayed and ultimately cancelled the promotional process concerning its own in-service employees. The Court held that there was no acceptable justification for this delay.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied heavily on the Constitution Bench judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, which held that recruitment begins from issuance of the advertisement/call for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies. It further held that eligibility criteria notified at the commencement of the process cannot be changed midway unless the existing rules or advertisement permit such change, and even then the change must satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness under Article 14.
The Court also considered PMC’s reliance on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, but held that the said decision did not assist PMC. That judgment dealt with whether vacancies arising before amendment must necessarily be filled under old rules. The present case was different because the selection process had already commenced and substantially progressed under the old rules.
The Court therefore held that the case was squarely covered by Tej Prakash Pathak, and that the 2014 Rules remained binding for the pending promotion process.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that PMC had initiated the promotion process on 29 January 2021, published seniority lists on 3 December 2021 and 31 May 2023, and admitted in its own affidavit that the process was 99% complete before amendment of the rules.
The only reason given for cancellation was the subsequent introduction of the amended 2023 Rules. The Court held that this was not a valid ground to cancel an almost concluded promotion process. Since the 2014 Rules governed the process when it commenced, PMC was bound to complete the process under those rules.
The Court also found the conduct of PMC arbitrary because it proceeded with direct recruitment while delaying promotions. This created prejudice to in-service candidates, especially because direct recruits and promotees would form part of a common seniority list.
The Court held that PMC could not frustrate the legitimate expectation of the petitioners without demonstrating a valid public-interest reason. No such justification was placed on record.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the PMC order dated 11 June 2025 cancelling the promotion process for Junior Engineer (Civil).
The Court declared that the promotion process initiated by Circular dated 29 January 2021 would be governed by the PMC Service Rules, 2014, including the 25% promotional quota and eligibility criteria applicable under those rules.
PMC was directed to complete the promotion process based on the seniority lists dated 3 December 2021 and 31 May 2023, issue appointment/promotion orders, and confer seniority from the relevant date. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within three weeks.
Case Detail
Case: Sumit Lahu Borkar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. with connected writ petitions
Court: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1575 of 2026 with Writ Petition Nos. 2164 of 2024, 2217 of 2024, 16449 of 2024, 8496 of 2025, 846 of 2024 and 1096 of 2024
Judge: Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe
Date: 2 July 2026
Result: Writ petitions allowed; PMC’s cancellation order quashed; promotion process directed to be completed under PMC Service Rules, 2014 within three weeks.
