MANISH N MODI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to quash and set aside the Notification dated 9.4.2004 issued by the respondent No.2 recommending/selecting the name of respondent No,3 as successful candidate in the Special Competitive Examination held for the purpose of promotion to the post of Section Officer considering the seniority on the basis of date of birth, and further direct to include the name of the petitioner in the recommendation/selection list of successful candidates for promotion to the post of Section Officer on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.

(2.) The short facts as emerging from the record of the petition are as under:

(3.) The petitioner, who is M.Com, L.L.B, is working as Deputy Section Officer. He was appointed as Assistant on 5.7,1997 whereas the respondent No.3 was appointed on 9.3.1998. A seniority list of Deputy section officer was published on 30.11.2000, wherein the name of the petitioner is at serial number 2647, whereas the name of respondent No.3 is at serial number 2776. Therefore, according to the seniority list the petitioner is senior to respondent No.3 in the service. The criteria for promotion from the post of Deputy Section Officer to the post of Section Officer is proved merit and efficiency on seniority-cum-merit basis, According to the petitioner, the seniority is to be reckoned with from the date of appointment in service and not on the basis of date of birth. 3 1 In special competitive written and oral examinations held by the respondent No.2 for the purpose of promotion to the post of Section Officer, the petitioner and the respondent No.3 have obtained equal marks i.e.265. The respondent No.2 prepared the list of successful candidates wherein the name of the petitioner has been excluded on the ground that the petitioner is junior to respondent No.3 in age group whereas the name of the respondent No.3 has been included in the selection list only by considering the seniority on the basis of his date of birth i.e. age. Therefore, the petitioner alleged that the respondent No.2 wrongly included the name of respondent No.3 in the selection list for promotion to the post of Section Officer. 3.2 The petitioner made representation to ventilate his grievances to the Public Service Commission as well as to the respondents State Government, but the same was not responded to. Since nothing was turned out, he has approached this Court by way of this petition.