SHANKERLAL RAMJIBHAI DABHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner a Sales Tax Inspector has filed this petition challenging the decision of the Government of Gujarat (State Government for short) not to promote him to the post of Sales Tax Officer.

(2.) Petitioner joined the services of the Sales Tax Department of the State Government as Clerk on 5/07/1956 He was promoted to the post of Sales Tax Inspector on 1/06/1966 Petitioner was allowed to cross efficiency bar in the pay scale applicable to Sales Tax Inspector on 15/01/1982 and he passed the Departmental Examination in December 1983. Petitioners case is that on passing the Departmental Examination he became eligible for promotion to the post of Sales Tax Officer. The petitioner has alleged that there was not complaint against him for his work or conduct for was any adverse remark made in his Confidential Report (C. R for short). He was included in the panel of Sales Tax Inspectors eligible for promotion to the post of Sales Tax Officer and his name was at Sr. No. 316 in this panel. According to the petitioner H. C. Jani respondent No. 3 herein was placed junior to him in this panel at Sr. No. 354. Petitioner has alleged that he was given to understand by the concerned authority on his passing Departmental Examination that on vacancy arising in the post of Sales Tax Officer he would be promoted to that post. Respondent No. 3 had also passed the Departmental Examination. The petitioner has further alleged that the post of Sales Tax Officer is to be filled in by seniority from amongst the Sales Tax Inspectors who have passed the Departmental Examination. The panel of Sales Tax Inspectors for promotion to the post of Sales Tax Officer is also prepared on the basis of seniority.

(3.) The Sales Tax Commissioner-respondent No. 2 herein however be Notification dated 1/10/1984 appointed respondent No. 3 as Sales Tax Officer superseding the petitioner. Petitioner contends that the authority concerned has violated the guarantee of equality sad equal treatment enshrined in Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution by refussing to promote him and promoting respondent No. 3 the was junior to him. Petitioner later on joined Miss P. K. Shastri as respondent No. 4. The case of the petitioner appears to be that Miss Shastri was junior to him in the cadre of Sales Tax Inspectors and she could not have been promoted to the post of Sales Tax Officer before he was promoted to that post. On the above grounds the petitioner has approached this Court praying to quash and set aside the order passed by respondent No. 2 promoting respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of Sales Tax Officers and for a direction to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to promote and appoint him to the post of Sales Tax Officer.