SUBODHCHANDRA GHELABHAI DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is working as Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Roads and Buildings, Baroda Circle at Baroda. He joined the service of respondent No.1 State in the year 1960 as Junior Engineer and during his tenure of service, he received promotions on account of his satisfactory performance. The petitioner has put in more than 3 years of service as Superintending Engineer and therefore, eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) as per the Recruitment Rules. The petitioner has averred that for the purpose of appointment to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil), respondent No.1- State has framed rules known as Chief Engineer (Civil) in the Gujarat Service of Engineer Class-I Recruitment Rules 1991. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner fulfills the qualification as per the rules and also fulfills other eligibility criterion for being considered for the post of Chief Engineer (Civil). It is further stated that though the seniority list of Superintending Engineers (Civil) is not finalized, but looking to the length of service of the petitioner, the petitioner is ranked higher in the seniority list. But large number of persons juniors to the petitioner are sought to be promoted bypassing the rightful claim of the petitioner. It is further stated that respondent No.1 had undertaken the process of preparing the select list for the purpose of giving promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) and for such purpose, considered 21 persons according to the seniority in the cadre of Superintending Engineer (Civil) and put them in the zone of consideration. The petitioner is also put in the zone of consideration looking to his seniority. The petitioner has alleged that respondent No.1 has prepared the select list of 7 persons, named in the petition, and also alleged that some of them were though not eligible were included in such list. It is further stated that out of 7 persons, Shri P.N. Patel, Shri S.I.Patel and Shri C.K. Patel as also Shri R.W. Parmar who are juniors to the petitioner are wrongly promoted bypassing the rightful claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has got outstanding career still the claim of the petitioner was superseded. The petitioner has further averred that there are no guidelines set out for considering the claims of the persons for promotion to the posts of Chief Engineer (Civil) and the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) has gravely erred in not recommending the case of the petitioner for promotion. The petitioner has further averred that though respondent No.3 was not recommended by the DPC, but his name was interpolated subsequently with a view to favour him. The petitioner has further stated that eligibility for being considered for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) is minimum 3 years service as Superintending Engineer (Civil). Shri C.K. Patel and Shri R.W. Parmar were not eligible and relaxation in the experience made in favour of said two persons was unwarranted, as number of other qualified persons were available at the time of selection and for such relaxation, though reasons were required to be recorded but no such reasons were record. By amendment in the petition, the petitioner has taken one more ground that respondent No.1 has gravely erred in considering 7 vacancies together to the post in question, though the said vacancies had arisen in three different years. It is stated that out of 7 vacancies, one vacancy had arisen in the year 1991-92 and three vacancies had arisen in the year 1993-94 and respondent No.1, therefore, ought to have considered the above vacancies year-wise and ought to have made selection to the said post by making separate list year-wise. The State Government has not undertaken the selection process year-wise and therefore, the action of the respondent State Government in clubbing the vacancies of three separate years is illegal.

(3.) I have heard learned advocates for the parties.