BHUPENDRAKUMAR M KADIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the action of the respondent authorities in not granting promotion to the petitioner in Class -III service in Cooperative Department. The petitioner has further prayed for a declaration that he is entitled to promotion in Class -II service in Cooperative Department with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of respondent No.4, his immediate junior to Class -II service.

(2.) IT appears from the record that during the pendency of the present Special Civil Application the petitioner was promoted to the post in Class -II service in Cooperative Department and therefore the only question which is required to be considered by this Court is with regard to deemed date of promotion of petitioner to Class -II service.

(3.) IT is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the case of the petitioner was considered by the State Government and the GPSC along with respondent No.4 and other employees, however the respondent No.4 his immediate junior was promoted but the petitioner was not granted the promotion. On considering the affidavit -in -reply filed on behalf of GPSC it appears considering Para 5 that by letter dated 20th July,1995 the State Government submitted a proposal for promotion to the post of Gujarat Co -operative Service Class -II and in the said proposal the name of the petitioner was at Serial No. 60. On receiving the same vide letter dated 5.8.1995 the Commission wanted some further information and clarification from the Government. It is further submitted that on receiving such information and clarification vide Government letter dated 17.8.1995, 76 officers out of the said list of 88 officers were approved by the Commission vide letter dated 1.1.1996 and from amongst other remaining officers the proposal regarding the petitioner was incomplete as his complete confidential report was not submitted to the Commission. It is submitted that the Government was informed accordingly as stated in Para 4 of the letter and in the meantime 61 officers out of the said officers in the approved list of Sr. No. 1 to 71 were promoted by the Government vide Notification dated 29.8.1996. In the said notification the respondent No.4 who was the immediate junior to the petitioner was included at Sr. No. 40. Thereafter, the Government once again by submitting incomplete confidential report of the petitioner called for opinion of the Commission. Thereafter vide letter dated 31.12.1996 the Commission requested the Government to submit complete confidential report of the petitioner and it was informed to the Government that only after getting the complete file the Commission will submit its opinion. It is submitted that pursuant thereto vide letter dated 17th March 1997 the Government informed the Commission that since complete confidential report of the petitioner is not available on the basis of available report and also the recommendation made in the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee considering the same as circumstantial evidence requested the Commission to give its opinion.