STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GELABHAI V. MEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner-State has challenged the order dtd. 8/1/2015 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar, wherein and whereby Appeal No.98 of 2011 filed by the respondent-employee claiming deemed date promotion to the post of Superintendent has been allowed. Rs.

(2.) Learned AGP Mr.Rohan Shah has submitted that the Tribunal has committed grave illegality and has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-employee. It is submitted that the case of the respondent was not considered for grant of deemed date promotion to the post of Superintendent since there were adverse entries in the Confidential Report of the respondent from 7/12/1992 to 31/3/1993 and the Tribunal has ignored such adverse entries without there being any material produced by the present respondent employee. He has submitted that the respondent has claimed deemed date promotion on the basis of his junior Shri A.V.Chauhan, who was in fact senior in the earlier seniority list prepared on 3/8/1997 and was promoted. He has submitted that the seniority list dtd. 3/8/1997 was subsequently revised and on 21/2/2007, wherein the respondent was placed at serial no.25, whereas Shri A.V.Chauhan was placed at serial no.28, which constrained the respondent to file the appeal before the Tribunal claiming the deemed date promotion with effect from 1997.

(3.) Learned AGP Mr.Rohan Shah has submitted that it is an admitted fact that there were adverse entries in the confidential report for the period from 7/12/1992 to 31/3/1993, which was confirmed on 3/2/1996 and was not challenged by the respondent and hence, the respondent is not entitled for deemed date of promotion. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the Government Resolution dtd. 7/2/1995 issued by the General Administration Department, which stipulates on considering 5 years adverse remarks of an employee at the time of preparing select list. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded.