LABSHANKAR GIRJASHANKAR DAVE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the dismissal of SCA No. 3255 of 199 2/09/1995. On that day the Learned Single Judge passed the following order:-

(2.) The case of the appellant was that he joined services of the erstwhile Western India State Agency Secretariate at Rajkot in 1955. On formation of the State of Saurashtra in 1947, he was absorbed as Senior Assistant and was confirmed on the said post on January 15, 1949. He was allocated to the State of Gujarat with effect from 1/05/1960. He was put in a district cadre. In 1976, however, he was brought back to the Secretariate. The next promotional post was that of Section Officer, Under Secretary and then to the Dy. Secretary. It was contended by the appellant that his case was required to be considered for the promotional post of Under Secretary as well as Dy. Secretary and though his juniors came to be promoted, his case was not considered and injustice was meted out to him. He, therefore filed Special Civil Application No. 351 of 1977, but the petition was summarily dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The matter was taken before the Division Bench by filing LPA No. 243 of 1997, which was allowed by the Division Bench and the following direction was issued by the Division Bench:

(3.) Inspite of the judgement and order passed by the Division Bench in the said LPA, the case of the appellant was not considered. He, therefore, filed the present petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.355 of 1982. Rule was issued, the respondents appeared and an affidavit in reply was filed. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that after the judgement of the Division Bench, the case of the petitioner for further promotion was considered by the Government in accordance with law and an order dated 14.7.81 Annexure B to the petition was passed. In the order, it was observed that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered for departmental promotion. Accordingly his case was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for considering his suitability or otherwise as Under Secretary and then as Dy. Secretary. It transpired to the Committee that it was very difficult prima facie to come to a decision solely on the basis of notional service. It was observed that since the petitioner had not worked as Section Officer his case could not be considered for promotion to the post of Under Secretary as well as Dy. Secretary. No final decision was thus taken in case of the appellant-petitioner and it was held that claim of the petitioner for further promotion from the post of Section Officer was liable to be rejected.