AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge in this petition is made to the seniority list of the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdar dated 07.02.2015, published by the Revenue Department of the Government of Gujarat.
Mr.Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned seniority list is illegal on more than one count. It is submitted that on merits, the case of the petitioner is on the lines of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.4800 of 2015 and cognate matters. It is submitted that the submissions in those petitions be treated as submissions in this petition as well. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioners be directed to be included at appropriate slot. Learned advocate for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to the name of the petitioners in the provisional seniority list dated 17.07.2014 at serial numbers 5591 and 5599 to 5605 in the said list. It is submitted that the name of the petitioners are not included in the final seniority list at all which is illegal. It is submitted that, reliefs as prayed for be granted.
On the other hand, learned Government Pleader has contested this petition. It is submitted that, on merits, the case of the State is on the lines of Special Civil Application No.4800 of 2015 and cognate matters. It is submitted that the submissions in those petitions be treated as submissions in this petition as well. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed.
Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under. 4.1 So far the legality of the impugned seniority list dated 07.02.2015 is concerned, it is the case of both the sides that their case is on the lines of Special Civil Application No.4800 of 2015 and cognate matters. For this reason, the judgment of today''s date, recorded on Special Civil Application No. 4800 of 2015 and cognate matters, will apply in this case also. However the following is the distinguishing feature, so far the present case is concerned. 4.2 From the provisional seniority list which is relied by the learned advocate for the petitioners, it transpires that though the status of the petitioners are promotees on the post of Deputy Mamlatdar, their seniority was treated from the date prior to their actual date of promotion. The contents of page:57, more particularly, from serial No.5599 to 5605 makes this aspect clear. This factor would tilt the balance against the petitioners. However their grievance is well founded to the extent that, though their names were included in the provisional seniority list, while making it final, their names are excluded altogether. 4.3 So far the seniority of the petitioners from the date of their actual promotion is concerned, their case need to be dealt with by the State in view of the judgment recorded on Special Civil Application No.4800 of 2015 and cognate matters.
For the reasons recorded above, this petition is partly allowed, with the clarification and direction to the State that these petitioners be assigned appropriate seniority, considering continuous officiation as promotee Deputy Mamlatdars, keeping in view the judgment of this Court of today''s date recorded on Special Civil Application No.4800 of 2015 and cognate matters. Rule is made absolute to this extent.