SOBHNABEN R DABHI Vs. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Notice of RULE for respondents Nos.1 and 2, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate waives service of Notice of RULE for respondents Nos.4 and 5. Respondents Nos.3 and 6 have been served, but have chosen not to put in an appearance before this Court. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided.

(2.) BY preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the action of respondents Nos.4 and 5, of not promoting her to the post of Mukhya Sevika, and in promoting respondent No.6 to the said post by order dated 09.09.2010, in spite of the fact that respondent No.6 is junior to the petitioner. It is prayed, inter alia, that the petitioner be promoted notionally as Mukhya Sevika, and be declared senior to respondent No.6.

(3.) MR. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the State Government is not directly involved in the process of selection and promotion of Mukhya Sevikas, and it is respondents Nos.4 and 5 who are directly involved. It is, however, submitted that looking to the contents of Government Resolution dated 13.12.2005, which lays down guidelines to the effect that the list for selection and appointment as Mukhya Sevika should be made as per seniority, it appears that the action of respondents Nos.4 and 5, in promoting the junior of the petitioner, is not in accordance with the Government Policy.