MAHENDRABHAI RANA Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for following prayers in para 17 of the petition :-

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Beat Guard on Class-IV on and from 11.1.1982, that he was working in the office of the Executive Engineer, Valod Division, which was directly under respondent No.1, that the petitioner came to be promoted as a Clerk on Class-III post along with seven other persons by order dated 4.6.1998, that by virtue of order dated 16.6.1998, earlier order dated 4.6.1998 came to be cancelled and two persons came to be promoted as against seven persons, that proposal for promotion for filling 18 posts of Clerks was sent to respondent No.3, that the post of Clerk can be filled in either by direct recruit or by way of promotion from Class-IV employee under the Gujarat (Non-Secretariat Clerks and Clerk-cum-Typists) Recruitment Rules, 1990, that ratio laid down among direct recruits and promotees is 8:2 and not 9:1, pursuant to an amendment made by virtue of notification dated 11.2.1998, if 18 posts were to be filled in, 5 vacancies can be filled in from Class-IV and 13 posts can be filled in by direct recruits, that respondent No.1 committed an error in passing order dated 16.6.1998 inasmuch as, he took ratio of 9:1 and decided to give promotion to only two persons, that the petitioner stood at serial No.276 in the seniority list prepared by respondent No.2 of Class-IV employees as on 1.1.1992, that the persons lower in seniority have been promoted by virtue of orders dated 4.6.1998 and 16.6.1998 and without considering the case of the petitioner, another order of promotion for two persons, i.e. Shri P.M. Chaudhary and Shri V.A. Patel from Class-IV employees came to be issued on 1.7.1998, that one Shri M.Z. Patel and Shri V.A. Patel, though were juniors to the petitioner, came to be promoted, that one Mr. V.A. Patel- respondent No.4, stood in the seniority list at Serial No.235-A and his seniority was wrongly fixed at the said place and on that basis, he was also promoted, that seniority list of Shri V.A. Patel was fixed on the basis of his wrong date of appointment, that if appointment of Shri Patel is taken to be 19.2.1982 as Beat Chowkidar in Class-IV, then appointment of the petitioner from 11.1.1982, being prior in time, Shri V.A. Patel would obviously be junior to the petitioner. However, since the mistake has not still been corrected, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction to correct such mistake in the seniority list so as to correct placement of the seniority of Shri V.A. Patel and to show Shri V.A. Patel in the seniority list after serial No.282, that one Shri P.N. Patel, who was working as Beat Chowkidar stood at serial No.278-D in the seniority list came to be promoted, who was junior to the petitioner, that about five persons, juniors to the petitioner, came to be promoted, that the petitioner made representation dated 17.8.1998 to the respondents pointing out that he has been superseded in the matter of promotion and that as per the Rules, ratio of 8:2 has to be followed in the matter of promotion to Class-III post and not the ratio of 9:1 as has been done by respondent No.1, that respondent No.1 replied by letter dated 2.11.1998 informing the petitioner that the petitioner could not be promoted in view of the Circular date 6.4.1995 issued by the General Administration Department, that since the petitioner has not been given benefit of promotion and since the petitioner has been continued to be shown at wrong place in the seniority list, since the correct ratio has not been followed and since the petitioner has passed requisite pre-service training examination in Class-IV post, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion and to give him the consequential benefits.

(3.) AS against the above-said arguments of learned advocate Mr. Mehta, learned ASsistant Government Pleader Mr. Pranav Dave for the respondents has vehemently argued that :-