FIRDAUSKHAN LATIFKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners of these petitions have approached this Court for the following reliefs:

(2.) Facts in brief are that the petitioners are serving as peons under the respondent no. 3-Director, Water and Land Management Institute (WALMI). They were appointed as peons vide orders dtd. 17/10/1986 in the pay scale of Rs.196.00232/-. By an order dtd. 27/11/1995, they were given the first higher grade scale of Rs.775.001025/-. On 6/1/1998, the names of the petitioners were recommended for undergoing pre-service training and examination. Having considered the cases of the petitioners for promotion and on approval by the Committee, vide order dtd. 27/8/1998, both the petitioners were promoted as Junior Clerks. The order stipulated that such promotion was on condition of passing pre-service training examination. On 08/10/2004, their orders for promotion were canceled on the ground that promotion was irregular and accordingly the petitioners by order of 19/10/2004 were reverted to the post of peon. A representation was made seeking details of cause of reversion. On 22/11/2005, the respondent no. 3-WALMI wrote to the State Government that since the petitioners had not passed their pre-service training examination, they had been reverted. On 22/6/2006, the petitioners' names were again recommended for training and the petitioners, ultimately cleared their pre-service training examination on 1/8/2007. Having passed their examination and completed their training, the petitioners requested for reinstatement on their promotional post. The recommendation was made on 11/10/2007 by the respondent no. 3-WALMI and by a letter of 31/12/2007, the request was rejected.

(3.) Mr. P.A. Jadeja learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that reading the orders of reversion dtd. 08/10/2004 and 19/10/2004 would indicate that not only they have been passed without following the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, six years after their promotion, their reversion has occurred without giving notice, but also despite having been promoted on a condition of undertaking pre-service training examination, the department did not conduct any such examination, for which, the petitioners cannot be faulted with.