I H MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh is appearing for the petitioner. Learned A.G.P. Mr. R. V. Desai is appearing for the respondents. In this petition, rule was issued by this Court on 17-7-1987 and the matter was ordered to be heard expeditiously. Respondents have not filed any reply to the present petition.

(2.) . The facts of the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk on 16-1-1951 in the Revenue Department in the Amreli District. On 15-8-1960, he was promoted as a senior clerk (now deputy mamlatdar) and on 1-6-1980, he was promoted as a mamlatdar and was posted as rojgar project officer at Dhrol, and thereafter as R.R.T., Jamnagar. He served upto 5-10-1981. From 6-10-1981 to 21-7-1986, he worked as Mamlatdar at Ranavav, Junagadh District and in July, again, he was posted as R.R.T., Collector Office, Amreli. According to the petitioner, next promotion is to the post of deputy collector and he was eligible and was entitled to be promoted to the post of deputy collector in October, 1986. However, he was not promoted to the said post and other persons junior to him were promoted to the said post. The petitioner was required to cross the Efficiency Bar on 1st June, 1985, but he was not allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar and as a consequence thereof, he was not given next increment due. He had also received adverse remarks made in his confidential reports for the period between 1-4-1984 to 31-3-1985, and therefore, he was not promoted to the higher post of deputy collector. According to him, the confidential report adverse to the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of rejecting legitimate claim for promotion to the higher post of deputy collector. According to him, the adverse remarks made against him were not communicated within three months but were communicated as late as on 10th December, 1985 when he was to cross the Efficiency Bar. Representation dated 20-1-1986 was made in this behalf but of no avail. The petitioner has already retired from service in January, 1987.

(3.) . In this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to ignore the adverse remarks of the petitioner for the aforesaid period and be directed to promote the petitioner with retrospective effect by giving deemed date of promotion from the date when his next junior was promoted.