B.H. Sangada vs State of Gujarat and 1 Another

A.J. Desai, J.—The only grievance raised by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition under Article 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India is that the respondent Authority has not properly dealt with the representation made by the petitioner to consider his case for giving exemption for not taking examination since in the case of the similarly situated employees, request made by them for exemption was considered by the respondent State. The brief facts arise from the petition are as under:

1.1. That the petitioner under the provisions of the Gujarat Development Service Departmental Examination Rules, 1990 had to undergo the examination for promotion to the higher post. Since some of the employees had crossed the age of 45 years, several resolutions were issued by the respondent State granting exemption in certain circumstances. The petitioner has produced several such resolutions on record. Since, the petitioner had crossed the age of 45 years, he requested the authority to consider his case for granting exemption from taking the examination provided under such resolutions. He has requested the authority to consider his case at par with other employees, who had been given promotion relying upon the said resolutions, without there being taking an exams.

1.2. The main grievance as stated by the petitioner is that the respondent State has not properly dealt with his case and has passed a cryptic order dated 24th October, 2002 rejecting the representation made by the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

Mr. D.A. Bambhania, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 24th October, 2002 is non-reasoned order and by one sentence, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected. He would submit that since the petitioner was subsequently promoted, the authority can be directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner keeping in mind several resolutions issued by the Government as well as orders passed promoting the other employees, who were on similarly situated post.

On the other hand, Mr. Niraj Ashar, learned AGP has submitted that the petitioner has already been promoted, however, it would be question of giving deemed effect.

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the order dated 24th October, 2002. In my opinion, the respondent Authority has not properly dealt with the case of the petitioner and the case of the other similarly situated employees were considered by the Authority for granting exemption from taking examination. The authority is expected to deal with the case of the petitioner as well as is also required to give reasons for not considering the case of the petitioner after comparing the case of other similarly situated employees.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the present Special Civil Application is required to be accepted and accordingly is allowed. The order dated 24th October, 2002 is quashed and set aside. The respondent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner as a fresh. The petitioner shall approach the authority with representation within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. The respondent No. 2 authority shall decide such representation within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of this order, without influenced by it''s earlier order. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.