GOVINDBHAI MULJIBHAI CHAVDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a retired employee of the Gujarat Maritime Board, filed this petition challenging the order made by the Board on 30th August, 1983 under which respondent No.3 was given promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary. The petitioner made grievance that his case for promotion was not considered and that respondent No. 3 was not possessing the requisite qualification for prompotion. Reply to the special civil application has been filed by the Maritime Board and the claim of the petitioner contested.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner made threefold submissions in the present case. Firstly, it is contended that the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary while promoting respondent No. 3 It has next been contended that the Rules framed by the Board for making promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary could not have been given effect to as the first Regulations are to be framed by the Government. Reliance in this respect has been made to the provisions of Sec. 113 of the Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that promotion should have been made in accordance with the notification dated 18th November, 1964.

(3.) On the other hand counsel for the Maritime Board contended that the petitioner's case was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary, put he was not adjudged suitable for the said post and as such he was not given promotion. The Board was competent to frame regulation regarding appointment and promotion to be made on the post in the Board. The regulation framed for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary was within the competence of the Board. It has next been contended that pending framing of the first regulation by the Government the Board was competent to frame regulation; and reference has been made to the document at Annexure - B filed by the petitioner along with special civil application. The counsel for the State supported the argument made by the learned counsel for the Board. He further submitted that the Board was within its competence to frame rules pending preparation of first regulation by the Government.