VIPULKUMAR MOTICHAND MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shakti Jadeja, learned advocate appearing for learned advocate Mr. S. P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Premal R. Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4 and Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Asst. Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1.

(2.) The petitioner by way of present petition seeks to challenge the unjustified and arbitrary action of the respondent - authorities in not communicating the remark of "good" for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the petitioner. The benchmark for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, is "very good" or "outstanding" remark in the ACR in five years out of last eight years. Under the aforesaid circumstances the noncommunication of remark "good" to the petitioner for the abovementioned years in question is fatal and such an action is in fact contrary to the position of law. Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held in March 2011 and the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid remark of "good" in the abovementioned years after making an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is the case of the petitioner that non communication of aforesaid remarks "good" has affected the petitioner adversely and therefore, petitioner is constrained to approach this Court with following prayers;

(3.) Mr. Jadeja, learned advocate submits that the petitioner herein was required tobe communicated the remarks for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 because in view of the said remarks "good" the petitioner is made eligible for the promotion. It is submitted that as per the circular of the State Government dtd. 29/10/2005, the benchmark for promotion of the petitioner is the remark of either "very good" or "outstanding in the five out of last eight years. Thus, the remark of "good" is as such an adverse remark as far as the promotional aspect of the petitioner is concerned.