H A VYAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.06.1987 whereby the petitioner was superseded and the petitioner's case for promotion to the Class - I post in the cadre of Superintendent of Land Records, in the order of his seniority was not considered and the petitioner was not promoted to the post from the date his immediate juniors were promoted to the said post. The petitioner has also prayed for the direction to the respondents to confer upon the petitioner all the benefits of the Class -I post of Superintendent of Land Records, including the benefits of salary, seniority, pay fixation, future promotions, pensionary benefits, etc. on the footing that the petitioner was promoted to the said post on the date on which his juniors were promoted.

(2.) The Court has issued notice on 3/9/1987 and ordered that one post of Superintendent of Land Records to be kept vacant. The petition was thereafter admitted on 21/3/1988 and the Court has observed that the interim relief could not be granted as it was futile and also against public interest to ask the respondents to keep one post vacant. The interim relief was, therefore, refused.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined the services as a Surveyor in March, 1951. The petitioner passed the compulsory departmental examination of S.S.D. in the year 1953. The petitioner has also passed the Land Records Qualifying Examination in April, 1967 at the very first attempt and the petitioner ranked first in the State in the said examination and was given a special award for the same by Govt. Resolution dated 4/12/1968. The petitioner was very meritorious in passing the examinations and his services were appreciated from time to time. By a letter dated 31/3/1982, the Deputy Director of Land Records appreciated the service of the petitioner. Similarly, the Collector of Sabarkantha by his letter dated 16.08.1983 appreciated the service of the petitioner in running the District administration. Between 1953 to 1976, the petitioner received as many as four promotions to the various Class HI posts. All the promotions were given according to his seniority and merit and efficiency. In the year 1976, the petitioner was promoted to the gazetted Class II post on the basis of his seniority and merit and efficiency. However, between . 1981 to 1985, there were three adverse confidential reports given to the petitioner. All these three reports are absolutely irrelevant and the same should not have been considered as adverse. The adverse confidential reports of the petitioner did not make any adverse comment against the petitioner on any of the relevant points covered and make general and vague remarks.