- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, interalia, with a prayer to quash and set aside the orders (two in number) dated 06.06.2000, passed by the Competent Authority in the Revenue Department and to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as having passed the Gujarat Lower Revenue Qualifying Examination (GLRQ Examination) within the prescribed number of chances by giving him his correct placement in the provisional seniority list dated 21.09.1999.
(2.) The undisputed factual matrix of the case is as follows: 2.1 The petitioner joined services as Clerk in the Revenue Department on 17.03.1983. The petitioner went on leave from 16.04.1987 to 29.02.1988, due to illhealth. On 01.03.1988, the petitioner gave a joining report to resume duty. Thereafter, he also submitted certain Medical Certificates. 2.2 On 11.08.1988, the petitioner applied to the State Government for sanctioning his leave for the period between 17.04.1987 to 29.02.1988. By an order dated 17.05.1989, the petitioner was permitted to resume duties by the Deputy Collector, Mehsana. 2.3 As per the Gujarat Lower Revenue Qualifying Examination Rules, 1978 (the Rules), the petitioner was required to pass the GLRQ Examination to be promoted to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar. As per Rule 4(1) of the Rules, the eligibility criteria is that the person concerned should have completed five years of continuous service and the examination should have been passed within a period of three years from the date he was granted permission to appear for the GLRQ Examination for the first time. The petitioner filled in the form for appearing in the GLRQ Examination in the year 1990 as he had completed five years of service as a Clerk. 2.4 The form of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2Collector, Mehsana, on the ground that the petitioner had not completed five years of continuous service. By an order dated 01.04.1991, the leave of the petitioner for the period from 17.04.1987 to 29.02.1988 was sanctioned as leave without pay, by the respondent State Government. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2, by order dated 09.04.1991, regularised the absence of the petitioner for the period between 17.04.1987 to 29.02.1988, as leave without pay. Thereafter, by a letter dated 19.04.1991, the petitioner requested respondent No.2 to regularise the period of absence from 01.03.1988 to 23.05.1989. However, the petitioner was not permitted to resume services upto 23.05.1989. The petitioner again wrote to respondent No.2 to regularise the said period of absence by a letter dated 29.04.1991 and sent reminders on 27.05.1991 and 21.06.1991. 2.5 By an order dated 21.06.1991, the Additional Resident Deputy Collector, Mehsana, passed an order stating that the persons whose names were reflected in the said , would be sent for six weeks' training with effect from 25.06.1991 and would be eligible to appear in the GLRQ Examination. The name of the petitioner was also included in the list. The petitioner was, accordingly, sent for training for a period of six weeks. The persons eligible to appear in the GLRQ Examination were allotted roll numbers and seat numbers. However, the petitioner's name did not figure in the list of eligible persons to sit in the said examination and he was not allotted a roll number or a seat number. The petitioner, therefore, wrote a letter dated 02.08.1991, to the Deputy Director, Sardar Patel Institute of Public Administration, stating that he is eligible to appear in the said examination to be held from 06.08.1991 to 08.08.1991 and had also undergone training in the same batch, therefore, a roll number/seat number be allotted to him. However, as none was allotted, the petitioner was not permitted to appear in the examination. 2.6 In the meanwhile, the petitioner continued to pursue his grievance regarding regularisation of the period of absence between 01.03.1988 to 23.05.1989. Several communications were made by him, in this regard. Ultimately, by order dated 01.09.1993, the period of absence between 01.03.1988 to 23.05.1989 was regularised as leave without pay. As this is the only relevant period pertaining to the issue involved in the present petition, it is not necessary to refer to the other periods of absence of the petitioner and the orders passed by the competent authority thereupon. After the regularisation of the above period, the pay of the petitioner was fixed by considering his service as continuous. In the year 1993, considering that the petitioner had completed five years of continuous service, he was permitted to appear in the GLRQ Examination and was allotted Roll No.79. The petitioner appeared in the examination held during 23.11.1993 to 25.11.1993. The result of the examination was declared by a Notification dated 25.05.1994. In the said Notification, the petitioner's name appeared at Serial No.38, in ScheduleA. Against the name of the petitioner, it is shown that the petitioner has cleared the examination in the first attempt. 2.7 The provisional seniority list of Deputy Mamlatdars, as on 01.01.1996, was issued by respondent No.2, on 03.07.1996. In the said seniority list, the name of the petitioner is shown at Serial No.256. Against his name, there is a remark that he has passed the GLRQ Examination beyond the prescribed number of chances. 2.8 The petitioner filed objections against the said seniority list on 18.07.1996, before respondent No.2. According to the petitioner, without considering his objections, another provisional seniority list dated 21.09.1999 was published, wherein his name is shown at Serial No.265 and it was again stated that the petitioner had passed GLRQ Examination beyond the prescribed number chances. 2.9 It is the case of the petitioner that he has passed the GLRQ Examination in the first attempt, as is clear from the Notification dated 25.05.1994; therefore, the respondents cannot say that he has passed the said examination beyond the prescribed number of chances. 2.10 On 14.10.1999, the petitioner filed objections to the seniority list dated 21.09.1999, aggrieved by the fact that his juniors were shown above him in the said list. As no action was taken by respondent No.2 for a considerable period of time, the petitioner filed a petition in this Court, being Special Civil Application No.2833 of 2000. This petition was disposed of, by order dated 10.04.2000, directing the respondents to decide the issue by treating the petition, itself, as a representation. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, respondent No.1 passed an order dated 06.06.2000, placing the petitioner at Serial No.251A in the seniority list. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.
(3.) Mr.G.M. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the reason as stated in the provisional seniority list, for placing the petitioner lower to his juniors, is that he has passed the GLRQ Examination beyond the prescribed number of chances. This reason is factually incorrect. As per the Notification dated 25.05.1994 and ScheduleA attached thereto, it is clear that the petitioner has passed the GLRQ Examination in the very first attempt. It is submitted that, subrule (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules requires that the person concerned should have passed the examination within a period of three years from the date he is granted permission to appear in the GLRQ Examination for the first time. The petitioner has cleared the said examination in the first attempt, within a period of three years from the date he was granted permission to appear in it. The permission was accorded in the year 1993. There is no doubt regarding the fact that after the regularisation of the period of absence with effect from 01.03.1988 to 23.05.1989, the petitioner has completed five years of continuous service. It is for this reason that he was permitted to appear in the examination. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not eligible to be granted the seniority at the proper place as per his entitlement. 3.1 It is next submitted that in the affidavitinreply filed on behalf of the respondents, a stand has been taken that the petitioner has passed the GLRQ Examination beyond the specified period and specified number of chances, therefore, his placement in the seniority list is correct. However, in paragraph4 of the said affidavitinreply, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner has passed the GLRQ Examination in the first attempt. It has wrongly been stated that the petitioner has passed the GLRQ Examination beyond the specified period as the record reveals that he has passed it within three years from the date when he was first permitted to appear in the examination. Permission was granted in the year 1993 and the petitioner passed the examination in the same year. Hence, the respondents cannot take the shelter of Rule 4(1) of the Rules in order to deprive the petitioner of his rightful place in the seniority list. The petitioner has, in fact, fulfilled the requirement of Rule 4(1) of the Rules.;