KANAIYALAL UDEYSHANKER JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As in all these special civil applications the same facts and grounds involve as well as the counsel for the petitioners is also one, I consider it to be appropriate to take up these matters for hearing altogether and are being deciding by the common order. For the decision of these three matters the facts are taken from special civil application No.2072 of 1999. The petitioner joined the police service as constable in the year 1966. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1970. In the year 1972 the petitioner had undergone refresher course meant for Head Constable and successfully completed the same. In the year 1977 the petitioner was promoted as First Grade Head Constable. It is the grievance of the petitioner that during the period from 1978-82 he was eligible to compete for promotion to the post of Police Sub Inspector. During this period he used to invariably appear in the written tests and used to pass therein invariably and whereafter he used to appear for personal interview but could not be selected due to subjective evaluation of the performance of the petitioner in the interview. In the year 1982-83 the petitioner appeared in the written test for promotion to the post of Police Sub Inspector wherein he obtained more than 60% marks in aggregate. It is the say of the petitioner that he came to know that those Police Head Constables (Grade-I), who obtained 50% and above marks in written test need not to appear for interview before the interview board and they can directly sent for the training at Police Training School at Junagadh. However, the petitioner, as per his case, was asked to appear in the interview though his aggregated marks in written test were more than 60%. Having aggrieved of that action of the respondents, in the year 1987 the petitioner along with the other similarly situated persons filed special civil application before this court. In the special civil application aforestated the interim order was granted by this court and the petitioner was permitted to join the training programme at P.T.S. at Junagadh. He passed the requisite examination and test at the end of the training programme. It is the grievance of the petitioner that having regard all these facts, he ought to have been promoted as P.S.I. long back but for the reasons best known to the respondents he was not promoted. The special civil application filed by the petitioner was came to be decided on1/11/89 and the same has been allowed. Against that judgment the respondent had filed Letters Patent Appeal in Division Bench. The Letters Patent Appeal is pending in the court. It is not in dispute that the State of Gujarat prayed for grant of stay of the order of the learned single judge in the special civil application. The Letters Patent Appeal court has declined to grant interim relief in the appeal. In June, 1997 the petitioner was promoted on ad-hoc basis as P.S.I. After this promotion the petitioner made the representation to the Hon'ble Minister for the Home Department for regularization of his promotion. Instead of regularizing his promotion it is contended that the petitioner was reverted from the post of P.S.I. In July, 1998 the respondent again promoted the petitioner to the post of P.S.I. on ad-hoc and temporary basis for one year. Under the order dated 15/3/99 the respondents have taken decision to revert the petitioner. Hence this special civil application before this court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents are giving ad-hoc and temporary appointment to the petitioner from time to time though he passed the requisite examination for promotion as P.S.I. He also undergone the process of the interview and training at P.T.S. Junagadh. Hence he should have been given the regular promotion. However, as L.P.A. is pending against the judgment of the learned single judge, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is understandable that the respondents are giving ad-hoc and temporary promotion to the petitioner but they are giving break in the promotion for the reasons best known to them. Earlier also, he was given promotion but after giving the break again he was given the promotion and again this time he has been reverted. Lastly, it is contended that the respondents are acting contrary to the decision of learned single judge given in the case of the petitioner wherein it has been laid down that those candidates who secured 30 or above marks in the interview are taken to be cleared in the interview and as the petitioner has secured more than 30 marks in the interview he should have been given regular promotion or even if it is taken to be ad-hoc or temporary promotion for the reasons that L.P.A. is pending it should have been continued.

(3.) The respondents submitted the reply to the special civil application and opposed the same. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that this court has given decision in favour of the petitioner in the earlier special civil application. It is decided that 150 marks fixed for the interview should have been taken only 60 marks and those candidates who got 30 or above marks in interview should have been taken to have cleared the interview. The L.P.A. has been filed against the judgment but the judgment is not stayed. No selected candidate is made available to replace the petitioner.