SURESHBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition the petitioner has challenged the communication at Annexure-E dated 18th April, 2000, by which the petitioner was communicated about his adverse remarks in his service record. The petitioner has also challenged the order by which his representation was rejected in this behalf. At the relevant point of time the petitioner was serving as Assistant Teacher and was also holding post of Head Master. The petitioner was communicated adverse remarks for the period between 01st April, 1998 and 31st March, 1999 after some delay. As per the said adverse entry, which is communicated to the petitioner, his knowledge in the subject of science is not proper and his control over the administration is also not found to be proper and his capacity to train the student is also not found to be proper. The petitioner was asked to make representation, if he is so aggrieved with the said representation, within six weeks to the Authority. The petitioner thereafter made a representation, but the said adverse entry was retained in the service record. The said decision has been challenged by the petitioner by way of this petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel Mr.Bipin Jasani for the petitioner argued that the adverse entry for the relevant period was communicated to the petitioner after one year and that too after the claim of the petitioner for higher pay- scale arose in the year 2000. It is submitted that in view of said late communication of adverse entry, which was communicated to the petitioner after one year, it can be said that the petitioner was subjected to injustice as in the year 2000 when his claim for considering higher pay-scale was considered on the basis of the said adverse entry. The representation made against the same is also rejected. It is submitted that in view of the said fact the higher pay-scale, which was made available to him after one year, i.e. in the year 2001 instead of 2000, which is based in view of adverse entry, is required to be quashed and set aside and benefit should be made available to him from the time when he was entitled, i.e. from July, 2000.

(3.) IN my view, when five years of CRs are required to be taken into consideration, i.e. from 1994 to 1999, for giving benefit of higher pay-scale and when admittedly within stipulated time, it can be said that the petitioner was denied opportunity of making effective representation at the relevant point of time. It is true that the said benefit has been given to the petitioner from the next year, i.e. from 2001, but in my view, since explanation for late communication is not at all justified, such adverse entry should not come in way of the petitioner for getting higher pay-scale from 15th July, 2000 instead of 15th July, 2001. In this connection, a reference is required to be made to the decision of learned Sing Judge of this Court in the case of M.U. Shaikh v Director of Employment and Training reported in 1996 (3) GCD 722 (Guj). In this case, the learned Sing Judge has held that there is no dispute about the fact that adverse entries were required to be communicated within six weeks after completion of C.R. of the relevant period, for which they are written. In paragraph 6 of the said judgment, it has been held as under: