BHUPATRAY O VYAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the Special Civil Application. There is no dispute that Health, Medical Education, Medical and Employees' State Insurance were four different wings of one department of Government, but there was watertight compartment in the categories of the post.

(2.) The petitioner was in service of the State of Gujarat in the Medical Education Department and dispute relates to the promotion to the post of Personal Assistant (Sr. Administrative Officer Class-II) and consequential further promotions to the next higher posts. The promotion to the post of Personal Assistant (Sr. Administrative Officer Class-II) were given wing wise. This post, as stated earlier, was not interchangeable and as such on the basis of seniority in the lower cadre in concerned wing, the promotions were given to the higher post of the Personal Assistant (Sr. Administrative Officer Class-II). It is also not in dispute that from 31st May, 1978 all the wings were merged in one and a common seniority list of all the employees working in different wings had been prepared. Earlier to it, the promotion has been made on the basis of the wing's seniority.

(3.) The petitioner has come up with a case that Shri J.D. Dahade was promoted on the post of Personal Assistant (Sr. Administrative Officer Class-II) from 11th March, 1968 on the basis of his seniority in the wing concerned whereas he was promoted on this post in the year 1971. In the combined seniority list, the petitioner has been placed at Sr. No. 41 whereas Shri J.D. Dahade was placed at Sr. No. 48. The petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant (Sr. Administrative Officer Class-II) from March, 1968 has to be considered which admittedly was not done. The petitioner made representations from time to time but his claim has been rejected on the ground that the deemed seniority cannot be granted and secondly that he was reverted in 1975 and then promoted in 1979 and therefore his services has to be taken from 1979. The reversion of the petitioner in the year 1975 and the promotion of the petitioner in 1979 are of no relevance whatsoever because after combined seniority list, a right has been accrued to the petitioner for consideration for promotion from March, 1968 when his junior, aforesaid has been given promotion. In view of this fact, the further contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner need not be gone into.