Loading...

Laxminarayan vs State on 8 July, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Laxminarayan vs State on 8 July, 2011
Author: H.K.Rathod,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/8184/2011	 4/ 4	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8184 of 2011
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

LAXMINARAYAN
M RATNU - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
GAURAV K MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR. SHARMA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 08/07/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Heard
learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Mehta, appearing on behalf of petitioner
and learned AGP, Mr. Sharma, appearing on behalf of respondent no.1.

Here
a case, in which present petitioner having aged 76 years old, earlier
filed a petition before this Court being Special Civil Application
No.8588 of 1990, which has been decided by this Court on 9th
March,2001 with a direction to respondents to consider the case of
petitioner for promotion to the post of TDO from June,1977, on which
date, his junior Kumari Jamuben Chaudhary was promoted and also if
petitioner is found suitable for promotion to the post of TDO with
effect from June,1977, he shall be entitled to all consequential
benefits follow there from. The aforesaid order, which has been
passed by this Court in case of present petitioner dated 9.3.2001, is
quoted as under:-

#. Heard learned
counsel for the parties.

#. In this petition, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner praying for
issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by
directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to
the cadre of Taluka Development Officer, at least from
the date on which his immediate junior Kumari Jamuben
Chaudhari came to be promoted in June, 1977. He further
prayed for the consequential benefits followed from this
deemed date of promotion to be granted to him. He is
claiming this benefit on the ground that he belongs to
Scheduled Tribe category but this claim was not accepted.

#. In the reply to the Special Civil Application in para
6 thereof the respondents admitted that the dispute
whether the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe
category or not has already been finalised and the
petitioner was considered as Scheduled Tribe. It is
submitted that until this final decision taken by the
competent authority his case was not considered as
Scheduled Tribe candidates. After accepting the claim of
the petitioner to the aforesaid category still his case
for promotion was not considered and for this the
explanation of the respondent in para 7 of the reply is
as under :-

“I further state and submit that this Hon’ble
Court has passed an order in Special Civil
Application No.720 of 1986 whereby, interim order
is passed restraining the State Government from
implementing and enforcing the order dated
4.2.1986. A copy of the same is annexed herwith
and marked as Annexure-I. By the interim order,
it was directed by this Hon’ble Court that only
qualified persons are required to be promoted.

In the present case, the petitioner has not
passed the examination as per the rules and
therefore, he is not qualified for promotion and
as per the interim order of this Hon’ble Court
whereby it is directed that only promotion is to
be given to the qualified persons, and therefore
also, the case of the present petitioner cannot
be considered. The Special Civil Application
No.720 of 1986 is still pending before this
Hon’ble Court.”

#. The officer, who has sworn the affidavit in support
of the reply-affidavit has not cared to read the order
dated 4.2.1986 passed by this court in Special Civil
Application No.720 of 1986. Where this order would have
been read by him then the reply would have been
otherwise. In the affidavit though he has stated that
the copy of this order of the court is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure-I but same is not annexed to the
reply affidavit. That goes to show that without reading
that order this officer has filed this affidavit and
therein he has taken stand contrary to what is
contemplated in the order passed by this court. Be that
as it may. The Special Civil Application No.720 of 1986
has already been dismissed and whatever the hurdle which
was there in the way of the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of
Taluka Development Officer does not remain.

#. In the result, the Special Civil Application succeeds
and the same is allowed the respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the
post of TDO from June, 1977, on which date his junior
Kumari Jamuben Chaudhari was promoted. In case, the
petitioner is found suitable for promotion to the post of
TDO with effect from June, 1977, he shall be entitled to
all consequential benefits follow therefrom. Rule is
made absolute in these terms. No order as to costs.

Thereafter, petitioner has made representation for the same prayer on 11th October,2004 to respondents, even though no decision has been taken. Thereafter, recently also one request was made to Hon’ble Chief Minister by letter dated 26th April,2011, but matter remained as it is and no decision has been taken by respondents in spite of the fact that in 2001, this Court has passed order in favour of present petitioner. Therefore, in light of this background, it is directed to respondents to immediately consider case of petitioner for entitlement for promotion on the post of TDO with effect from June,1977 and, thereafter, also considered further question whether petitioner is entitled for any consequential benefits or not as early as possible within a period of one month from the date of receiving copy of present order and to keep in mind the age of petitioner, which is 76 years fighting for his legal rights to be considered for promotion more then 21 years in this Court. This matter is to be considered seriously by respondents and to take appropriate decision as directed by this Court and communicate immediately decision to petitioner.

In view of above observations and directions, present petition is disposed of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits. However, in case, if respondents do not decide or examine case of petitioner for promotion for the post of TDO as directed by this Court within a period of one month, then it is open for petitioner to revive present petition by filing merely note in Registry. Direct service is permitted.

(H.K.RATHOD,J.)

Vahid

   

Top

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information