PRASHANT PIYUSHKUMAR JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Swapneshvar Goutam, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.

(2.) The challenge in this petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India is, interalia, to the action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner in the Seniority List dated 01.01.2009 and, consequently, not granting him the deemed date on the promotional post, especially when persons appearing after Serial No.567 in the Seniority List dated 01.01.2009 were promoted to the next higher post of Senior Clerk.

(3.) Briefly stated, the factual matrix in which the petition has been filed is that pursuant to an advertisement published by respondent No.2, Resident Commissioner, Gujarat Bhavan, New Delhi, on 22.04.1990, in the "Navbharat Times", inviting applications for eight posts of Clerk and three posts of Telephone OperatorcumReceptionist, the petitioner made an application dated 01.05.1990, for appointment on the post of Clerk/Typist. It was stated in the advertisement that the recruited Clerks may be assigned filing work, typing work or other office work in Gujarat Bhavan. Pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued an interview call letter dated 16.05.1990 to the petitioner, with reference to his application for the post of Clerk/Typist and Telephone OperatorcumReceptionist. Pursuant to the interview, the petitioner was successful in securing the appointment and by a letter dated 19.12.1990, the petitioner was informed that, with regard to his application dated 01.05.1990, regarding the post of Office Clerk/Typist, he has been selected for temporary appointment. The petitioner was asked to report for duty within ten days from the issue of the said letter. Accordingly, the petitioner resumed his duties as Clerk/Typist on 24.12.1990. The petitioner was given an appointment letter dated 04.01.1991, in which it was mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner as Clerk (Pantry Clerk) is confirmed and the petitioner is on probation for a period of one year. It may be appropriate to mention that the word "Pantry Clerk" used after the word "Clerk" has been reflected for the first time in the abovementioned order. However, the designation of the petitioner, in the said appointment letter, is mentioned as Clerk and the words "Pantry Clerk" are mentioned in brackets thereafter, so as to clarify that though the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk, he would have to perform duties in the pantry. On 19.12.1991, the probation period of the petitioner was extended for another six months with effect from 24.12.1991. Thereafter, an office order dated 11.06.1992 was issued, stating that on completion of the probation period on 24.06.1992, the petitioner was to be continued on the post of Pantry Clerk. The original designation of the petitioner as Clerk was not mentioned in this office order, before the words "Pantry Clerk".