M N THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 03.09.2012 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Sujlam Suflam Circle No.2, Mehsana - Respondent No.2, cancelling the promotion of the petitioners which were given vide order dated 14.05.2012.

(2.) Mr. Adeshra, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had joined the service with the respondent authorities on the work-charge establishment and as per the policy of the State, on completion of 10 years of service, they were entitled to the post and pay scale of Work Assistant, which was granted to them vide order dated 14.05.2012 by respondent No.2. It is submitted that the petitioners had already started working as Work Assistants. It is submitted that thereafter the impugned order came to be passed by that very authority which is illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that before canceling the promotion order, no hearing was given to the petitioners and thus it is in the breach of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. It is further submitted that even on merits, the promotion given to the petitioners was in accordance with law and had opportunity of hearing been given to the petitioners, the order of withdrawing promotion would not have been passed by the Authorities, on merits. In support of this say, reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court recorded on Special Civil Application No. 4400 of 2010 dated 30.04.2010, and Special Civil Application Nos. 5918 of 2010 and 5941 of 2010 - both dated 11.05.2010. It is submitted that, on merits, this case is covered by the said decisions of this Court, in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has contested this petition. Reliance is placed on the contents of the affidavit-in-reply dated 20.03.2013 and further affidavit-in-reply dated 29.07.2013, which are on record. It is submitted that merely on completion of 10 years of service, the petitioners were not entitled of promotion, but the post of Work-Assistant had to be there and that is how, while granting promotion to the petitioners vide dated 14.05.2012 (Annexure-B), error had cropped up. It is submitted that the said error could be corrected by the authorities at any time and no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that it is the stand of the Authorities that this petition needs to be dismissed.