VAJABHAI MANCHHABHAI GAMIT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner who is Range Forest Officer serving in the State of Gujarat, has inter alia prayed that by appropriate Writ the respondent-State should be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests and to promote him in pursuance of such consideration with retrospective effect.

(2.) The petition has been admitted by the Division Bench but no interim relief as prayed for was granted. Since then, the petitioner is waiting its turn in this court. In this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the main grievance made by the petitioner is to the effect that he is unconstitutionally denied the promotion in violation of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India to the post of Asst. Conservator of Forests-a Cl.II Gazetted post. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner it would be just and proper to state few relevant facts giving rise to the present petition at this stage which are being briefly stated as under:

(3.) Mr. S.V. Parmar, Ld. Advocate appearing for petitioner has vehemently urged before this Court that the petitioner, a candidate of ST of being denied the equal opportunity in the matter of employment by his non-promotion to the higher post of Assistant Conservator of Forests, for no fault of his, but only for the omission of the State in hot framing the subordinate legislation as per law and in making rules it failed to provide for appointees of the year 1977. It is his case that omission to mention the recruitment of 1977 as Range Forest Officer in the Recruitment Rules meant for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests has unfortunately resulted into violation of equality of appointment guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed with direction to the State Government to frame appropriate rules or amend appropriately the subordinate legislation by mentioning Recruitment year 1977 as one of the years of appointees as Range Forest Officer to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. The omission to mention the year 1977 in the subordinate piece of legislation has, according to Mr. Parmar, Ld. Advocate for petitioner, resulted into violation of right of the petitioner under Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Parmar very fairly submitted before the court that had the Rules been properly framed and the year 1977 been mentioned as the relevant year of recruits in the cadre of Range Forest Officers, the petitioner would have been, as a matter of course, entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests which is being denied to him solely on the basis of such omission in the subordinate piece of legislation and that therefore direction in that behalf only shall help the petitioner in seeking his promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests.