LAWS(GJH)-2003-9-59

HEMANTKUMAR VASHRAMBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On September 06, 2003
HEMANTKUMAR VASHRAMBHAI PATEL Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Supehia for the petitioner; Mr. ND Gohil, learned AGP and Mr. HS Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondents. Brief facts of the present petition are to the effect that the petitioner was serving as assistant engineer in charge of the post of the Deputy Executive Engineer at Palitana Panchayat Sub Division. According to the petitioner, by order dated 16.10.1998, about sixty persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer but the petitioner has not been promoted and on inquiry, he came to know that due to the alleged pendency of departmental inquiry, he has not been promoted though he was found fit for promotion. According to the petitioner, no departmental inquiry is pending against the petitioner since no charge sheet has been issued against him. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this court with a prayer for directing the respondents to release his promotion.

(2.) According to the petitioner, when the DPC met on 23.1.1998, at that time, no departmental proceedings were pending against him. Not only that even no conscious decision was there to contemplate the inquiry against him and he was selected for the post of Deputy Executive Engineer and his name was also recommended for promotion to the higher post by the DPC on 23.1.1998. At the time of issuing rule, following order was passed by this court on 3rd March, 1999:

(3.) It has been submitted that the aforesaid interim order made by this court has yet not been implemented as it was challenged by the respondents before the Division bench of this Court by filing LPA No. 440 of 1999. However, ultimately that appeal has been dismissed and disposed of by order dated 28th October, 1999 and, therefore, nothing remains pending against the interim order dated 3rd March, 1999. Learned AGP Mr. ND Gohil appearing for the respondent State authorities has submitted that since the interim order was challenged, it has not been implemented till this date.