P.K. Hotha vs State of Gujarat and Others

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned Resolution No. 7 passed in the Meeting of the Standing Committee held on 20.08.1998, and also prayed to direct the respondent-Corporation to appoint the petitioner on the post of Deputy Manager from the date on which respondent No.4 is/proposed to be appointed by giving him deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 30.07.1998, on which date general category candidates are promoted leaving the petitioner who is an ST candidate and subject to the relaxation as per the Government Resolutions/Circulars.

The petitioner in response to the Advertisement of the respondent No. 3-Corporation, applied for the post of Assistant Auditor and was selected and appointed as such. On 22.07.1993, the petitioner in response in the Advertisement of the respondent No. 3 Corporation applied for the post of the Assistant Manager and was selected as such. The respondent No. 4- Shri Dilipbhai B. Shah who was working as a Statistical Officer, in absence of promotional avenue was placed in the cadre of Assistant Manager w.e.f. 08.08.1994. The respondent No. 4 was promoted as Deputy Manager on the vacant post exclusively reserved for ST/ST on adhoc basis for a period of six months. As respondent No. 4 is junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Manager as per respondent No. 3 - Corporation, and petitioner who is senior and being a Scheduled Tribe candidate is being denied the opportunity, thereby favouring the general category candidate in the vacant post exclusively reserved for ST/SC and hence, this petition.

When the matter was called out, learned advocate for the petitioner was not present. However, since the matter is very old, the Court proceeded with the matter.

Mr. Chhaya, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the candidate having required experience is not available for promotion and the post is required to be filled in in the public interest. The above policy has been adopted in line with the State Government policy in this regard. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the respondent that in view of the experience criteria defined as above, Assistant Manager i.e petitioner even after waving of experience of 1/3 i.e. 32 months in his favour, has not acquired the experience of 64 months on the date of proposal . Therefore, the name of the petitioner is not taken into consideration.

As a result of hearing and on perusal of the document on record including affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, it is found that as per the policy adopted by the A.M.C. regarding promotion from Class II to Class I post, minimum 8 years experience in Class II post is required but appointing authority can think of waiving experience upto 1/3 or 8 years if it is confirmed that candidate having required experience is not available for promotion and the post is required to be filled in in the public interest. The above policy has been adopted in line with the State Government policy in this regard. It is further found that in view of the experience criteria, the petitioner who is Assistant Manager even after waving of experience of 1/3 i.e. 32 months in his favour, has not acquired the required experience of 64 months on the date of proposal . Therefore, the name of the petitioner is not taken into consideration. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for the promotion. The petition is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

However, it is clarified that on fulfilling the criteria, the case of the petitioner will be considered by the respondent in accordance with law.