NIRANJAN SHANTILAL BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 9-2-1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition preferred by present appellant. The learned Single Judge has, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition and declined to grant the relief prayed for in the petition.

(2.) Mr. Vyas, learned Advocate has appeared for the appellant-petitioner. We have heard the learned Counsel and have perused the record.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner has submitted that the appellant could not have been subjected to the departmental examination under the amended Gujarat Co-operative Department (Conditions of Service Relating to Gujarat Co-operative Service, Class-I and Class-II Officers' Examination) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1975") and the action of the respondents to withhold his increments on the ground that the appellant-petitioner did not clear the departmental examination, as per the amended Rules viz. Rules of 1975 is arbitrary and contrary to law. He also assailed the denial of promotion to Class-I to the appellant-petitioner even though his immediate junior was promoted in June, 1981. The learned Counsel for the appellant also assailed the adverse remarks in the Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as "C.R.") for the period pertaining to 1-4-1980 to 31-3-1981 and submitted that the said adverse remarks deserve to be expunged. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating the relevant provisions under the Rules of 1975 and also erred in rejecting the submission that the appellant-petitioner would not be governed by the said Rules of 1975 but would be governed by the Gujarat Co-operative Department (Conditions of Service Relating to Gujarat Cooperative Service, Class-I and Class-II Officers' Examination) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1966"). Learned Counsel also submitted that the Rules of 1975 could not have been applied retrospectively. With a view to supporting his submissions, the learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner has relied on the judgments in the case between P. Tulsi Das v. Govt, of A.P., 2003 1 SCC 364 and Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2006 13 Scale 658.