Gujarat High Court High Court

N vs State on 23 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
N vs State on 23 February, 2010
Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/1478/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1478 of 2010
 

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


 

N
P UPADHYAY - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
PARESH UPADHYAY for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR SHIVANG SHUKLA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3. 
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 23/02/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. The
petitioner is serving under the respondent as Range Forest Officer
and was granted higher pay scale of the next promotional post in the
year 1993. He was promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forest
(Gujarat Forest Service Class-II) purely on ad-hoc basis by
notification dated 08.12.2008 with the clarification that the
promotion was purely on ad-hoc basis for a period up to 07.12.2009 or
till the direct recruitment was undertaken. It was also clearly
stipulated in the notification that the promotions were purely ad-hoc
and will come to an end automatically on 07.12.2009, unless specific
orders continuing the same for any further period are issued.

2. Now,
by impugned order dated 17.02.2010 based on notification dated
09.02.2010, of which a copy was placed and taken on record, the
petitioner is not considered for further extension of the period of
ad-hoc promotion and he is reverted to his original post of Range
Forest Officer on the ground of adverse remarks recorded in his
Annual Confidential Report for the year 2007-08. It was stated by
learned AGP that the adverse remarks are confirmed even after the
objections and representation of the petitioner being considered.

3. It
was sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioner that at the time
of issuing the order for ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner,
requisite record of the ACRs of the petitioner would have been
considered and the authority would not be justified in taking into
account subsequent report of adverse entries for the subsequent year
i.e. 2007-08. He further submitted that even issuance of
charge-sheet, after decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee,
cannot be considered for the purpose of denying promotion, according
to policy of the Government contained in Resolution dated 04.08.2007
of General Administration Department of the State Government.

4. It
was, however, seen from the record that it was not a regular
promotion of the petitioner and in case of ad-hoc promotion expressly
for a limited period, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner
cannot be applied. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner
cannot claim any vested right or interest in continuation of his
ad-hoc promotion and the impugned action of not extending the
promotion being based upon valid ground, the petition is dismissed.
Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.

(D.H.Waghela,
J.)

Jyoti

   

Top