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.Harshadray A. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner 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 petitioner be directed to be included in seniority list at appropriate slot. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to his representation dated 14.08.2014 and the order of this Court dated 30.11.2006 recorded on Special Civil Application No.7321 of 1997. 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4.2 The petitioner was superseded while his juniors were promoted as Deputy Mamlatdar in the year 1997. His grievance as voiced in his representation dated 14.08.2014 is also to the effect that he ought to have been promoted as Deputy Mamlatdar in March, 1997 instead of 15.06.1999 the date when he was promoted. He had also filed petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.7321 of 1997 which his disposed of on 30.11.2006 without grant of any relief. It would not be open for the petitioner to reopen that issue. Therefore he can not claim seniority from March, 1997 as claimed by him. The impugned seniority list dated 07.02.2015 can not be disturbed at the instance of this petitioner, on the ground that he ought to have been promoted in March, 1997 and he should be granted seniority accordingly. This contention therefore is rejected.
4.3 So far the seniority of the petitioner from the date of his actual promotion is concerned, his case 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 this petitioner be assigned appropriate seniority, considering 15.06.1999 as the date of his continuous officiation as a promotee Deputy Mamlatdar, 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.