BAPALAL J GADHVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. D. G. Chauhan for the petitioner and Mr. L. B. Dabhi, learned A. G. P. for respondents.

(2.) According to the case of the petitioner, case of the petitioner is governed by the judgment and order of this Court dated 20-7-2001 given in Special Civil Application No. 10532 of 1998 wherein petitioner was also one of the petitioners. According to the case of the petitioner, on the basis of the oral assurance given by the respondent-authority, petitioner had earlier withdrawn his name from the said petition and said petition came to be disposed of qua petitioner, and thereafter, respondents are not considering case of petitioner for the benefit at par to the other petitioners in Spl.C.A. No. 10532 of 1998 on the basis of judgment and order of this Court dated 20-7-2001 though petitioner is similarly situated employee. According to the petitioner, respondents are required to consider case of the petitioner for posting for the post of P.S.I. Petitioner had worked as unarmed police constable from 14-12-1979 for a period of four years, and from 1983, petitioner worked as Head Constable Gr. I for thirteen years and from 9th January, 1996 to 2nd August, 1999, petitioner worked as Intelligence Officer which is equivalent to the post of P.S.I. for a period of three years and seven months. It appears that he has also worked as Radio Operator (equivalent to the post of Head Constable Grade I). Petitioner is possessing requisite qualification for promotion to the post of P.S.I. as required under the relevant rules. Petitioner had successfully passed written departmental examination, cleared oral test and had successfully completed training of four months for promotion to the post of P.S.I. Out of 350, 349 head constables including all juniors have been promoted to the post of P.S.I. barring petitioner. According to the petitioner, though his case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Spl.C.A. No. 10532 of 1998 dated 20-7-2001, respondents are not extending those benefits to the petitioner and he has thus been deprived of his legal and statutory right and legitimate claim of promotion to the post of P.S.I. Learned Advocate Mr. Chauhan appearing for the petitioner submitted that in Spl.C.A. No. 10532 of 1998, after examining merits of the similarly situated employees, orders were passed by this Court and case of the petitioner is required to be considered as per this Court's decision dated 20-7-2001 in Spl.C. A. No. 10532 of 1998. Learned Advocate Mr. Chauhan also submits that in the aforesaid petition, petitioner was a party - one of the petitioners but only because of the oral assurance given by the respondent-authority, in June, 2001, prayer was made by petitioner for deleting his name from the said petition as petitioner and such permission was granted by this Court and his name came to be deleted, and thereafter, respondents refused to consider his case for such promotion. It was his submission that once, if orders have been passed by this Court in case of the other similarly situated employees, and if the case of the petitioner is governed by the said decision of the employees who are similarly situated, then, respondents are bound to extend such benefits to the other employees who are similarly situated and for such benefit, it is not necessary for petitioner to file writ petition seeking similar benefit. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as under : (1) K. T. Veerappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2006 (4) Scale 293. (2) State of Karnataka & Ors. v. C. Lalitha, reported in 2006 (1) Supreme 640.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr. D. G. Chauhan for the petitioner as well as the learned A. G. P. Mr. Dabhi for the State Authority. I have also perused order of this Court in Spl.C.A. No. 10532 of 1998 dated 20-7-2001, Paras 14, 16 and 18 in particular. Paras 14 and 16 of the said judgment are reproduced as under :