YOGESHKUMAR HARIPRASAD BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed these two separate petitions. However, the subject matter is one and the same, i.e. seeking deemed date of appointment. Special Civil Application No.11882 of 2017 is filed for quashing and setting aside judgment and order dtd. 17/6/2015 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeal No.29 of 2010, by which claim of the petitioner for giving deemed date of appointment as 18/2/2003 for the purpose of notional benefit has been rejected. Special Civil Application No.11951 of 2017 is filed with a prayer to quash and set aside communication dtd. 18/11/2015, by which representation of the petitioner dtd. 24/7/2015, for the same purpose, i.e. to give him notional deemed date of appointment as 18/2/1993 came to be rejected.

(2.) The respondent-State has filed its reply in Special Civil Application No.11951 of 2011. However, as the subject matter of both these petitions is same, i.e. regarding deemed date of appointment, both the matters are taken up for joint hearing and disposal.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that in the selection procedure, the petitioner had appeared and after due selection procedure, was placed in the select list at Sr. No.3. It is submitted that the candidates whose names appeared at Sr. Nos.1 and 2 were given appointment orders with effect from 18/2/1993. However, the petitioner at the relevant time was not given any appointment order. However, subsequently, by appointment order dtd. 4/3/1999, the petitioner was appointed. It is submitted that as the petitioner had participated in the same selection process, were number seats available were 4 and as the petitioner was at Sr. No.3, the petitioner also should have been given appointment along with candidate at Sr. Nos.1 and 2 in the year 1993.