H L RATHOD Vs. GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the award of the selection grade in the cadre of senior clerks to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in supersession of his better and superior claims by virtue of his seniority over them in the cadre of junior clerks.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus : Respondent No. 1 is the University established under a statute 'the University' for convenience). The petitioner was appointed as a junior clerk in the establishment of the University and he joined his services on and from 7/08/1965. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 joined services on the establishment of the University as junior clerks on 27/02/1967 and 6/01/1969 respectively. It appears that the University undertook the procedure for selection of suitable candidates to fill in the vacancies in the cadre of senior clerks from amongst the eligible candidates in the cadre of junior clerks. All the eligible candidates including the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were interviewed by the selection committee consisting of some five members with the Principal of the College as its Chairman. Pursuant to the list prepared by the selection committee, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and later on the petitioner were promoted as senior clerks. The orders of promotion in the case of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were issued on 21/06/1972 whereas in the case of the petitioner on 26/06/1972. Thereafter it appears that by one order passed on 19/01/1981 respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were given the selection grade in the cadre of senior clerks with effect from November 1975. Thereupon the petitioner seems to have made some representations to the University, but to no avail. Thereafter the petitioner caused to serve to the University one notice through his Advocate, on 1 9/01/1981 voicing his grievances against injustice done to him by allowing respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to supersede him and sought redressal thereof from the University. A copy of the notice of 19/01/1981 is at Annexure 'A' to this petition. The University caused its reply thereto by its communication of 31st January/ 3/02/1981. Its copy is at Annexure 'B' to this petition. In the meantime, it appears that the University contemplated promotion of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the cadre of store-keepers. The petitioner apprehended that his better and superior claims for the promotional post would be bypassed. He thereupon approached this Court by way of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances against the University.

(3.) Shri Nanavati for respondent No. 1 has raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of this petition on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court by way of this petition. According to Shri Nanavati for respondent No. 1, the promotions in the cadre of senior clerks were effected way back in June, 1972 and it is too late in the day for the petitioner to voice his grievances thereagainst after lapse of some nine years therefrom. As against this, Shri Anand for the petitioner has submitted that no such point has specifically been raised by respondent No. 1 in the affidavit-in-reply filed on its behalf in this case. If such objection was taken, runs the submission of Shri Anand for the petitioner, the petitioner could have very well explained the circumstances which led him to espouse his grievances against his supersession after about nine years. Even otherwise, according to Shri Anand for the petitioner, the University never circulated the seniority list of its employees till the date of the institution of this petition, and as such the petitioner had no occasion to believe that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were placed above him in the cadre of senior clerks when all of them came to be promoted as a result of the process of selection undertaken at the same time.