Decided on November 25,1983

N. K. Mehta Appellant
State of Gujarat and Others Respondents


S.A.SHAH, J. - (1.) The petitioner who is an Executive Engineer is challenging his super-session for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer by an order dated June 16 1977 produced at Annexure-B by which his juniors were promoted.
(2.) The petitioner was recruited as overseer and promoted as Deputy Engineer in October 1975 by the erstwhile State of Saurashtra. Petitioner was thereafter allocated to the bilingual State of Bombay and thereafter to the State of Gujarat as Deputy Engineer. The petitioner was promoted in November 1965 to the post of Executive Engineer which post he still occupies. Promotional post for the Executive Engineer is that of Superintending Engineer. Though admittedly the petitioner was the senior most Executive Engineer he was superseded on 16th June 1977 and his juniors-respondents No. 2 3 and 4 were promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. Thereafter also several of his juniors have been promoted again superseding the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that he had not received any punishment not even warning and no adverse remarks were communicated to him except the one which was communicated to him by a letter dated March 9 1977 pertaining to the period from June 3 1971 to December 31 1973 which rated his work as `fair. The said remarks have been communicated to him in a bunch after five to seven years and according to him the said remarks being `fair cannot be said to be adverse remarks.
(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that those uncommunicaited remarks are the sole basis of consideration for refusing promotion to him though the petitioners other service records are unblemished and commendable. Having come to know about this supersession the petitioner made a representation but no reply was given. In para 14 of his petition the petitioner states that according to the rules the adverse remarks should be communicated within six months after the completion of he relevant year and the communication of the adverse remarks after a lapse of five to six yeArs is clearly mala fide and an extraneous consideration in judging the suitability of the petitioner.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.