NARAN RAIYA SINDHAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original petitioner who had preferred petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 14.6.2012 passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby the appellant was ordered to be reverted to his original post of Gram Sevak on the ground that the appellant failed to pass departmental examination within the prescribed chances and prescribed time limit.

(2.) LEARNED Single Judge rejected the petition by observing that the promotion given to the appellant to the post of Extension Officer (Panchayat) was subject to the condition that the appellant was required to pass the departmental examination as prescribed by the statutory Rules within the specified chances and was liable to be reverted on failure of passing such departmental examination. Learned Judge has further observed that the appellant was given prescribed chances to pass the examination but he could not clear the same and thus, he failed to comply with the condition of order of promotion dated 19.8.1996.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Nirav Sanghavi for the appellant submitted that though it is true that the appellant could not pass the departmental examination within the prescribed chances under the old rules, however before reversion of the appellant was effected by the impugned order, the Rules for departmental examination, called as The Extension Officer, Class -III (Panchayat)/Taluka Panchayat Officer, Departmental Examination Rules, 2009 ('the Rules) came into force and in these Rules, it is clearly provided that employees who were appointed by promotion to the post of Extension Officer and had not passed departmental examination, held under the old rules shall unless he had been exempted from passing such examination under these rules be required to pass the said examination within specified chances from the date of his completing five years' continuous service from the date of promotion or within 3 years from the date of commencement of these rules whichever is later. Mr. Sanghavi submitted that after the above -said Rules came into force, no departmental examination was held. Mr. Sanghavi submitted that since no examination was held, the appellant could not avail any chance and therefore, consequence provided in these Rules would not ensue. Mr. Sanghavi thus submitted that the impugned order of reversion passed against the appellant was in clear breach of Rule -6 of the Rules and therefore, learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the order impugned in the petition. Mr. Sanghavi submitted that only before few days of the retirement, the order of reversion came to be passed against the appellant which would deprive the appellant of all the consequential benefits of promotional post. Mr. Sanghavi thus urged to allow the petition.