Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 23 (GUJ)

A B PARMAR v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2014-01-08

A.G.URAIZEE, K.S.JHAVERI

body2014
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 29916 of 2007 whereby the prayers for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 01.05.2006, order dated 23.08.2006, letter dated 07.11.2007 and the prayer to direct the respondents to ignore the adverse remark for the period from 09.05.2005 to 31.03.2006 and to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sheristedar and to promote him from 20.07.2007 with all consequential benefits were rejected. 2. Heard Mr. Supehia, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. JK Shah, learned AGP appearing for respondent State. 3. It is the case of the appellant that he is serving as Maintenance Surveyor in the office of the City Survey Superintendent No. 2, Surat and that vide order dated 20.07.2007 passed by respondent no. 3 many persons barring the appellant were promoted to the post of Sheristedar. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 18818 of 2007 challenging the said action. Pursuant to the directions of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2007, the case of the appellant was placed before the Departmental Promotional Committee and on 07.11.2007 the appellant was informed that he could not be promoted in view of the adverse remark against him. The petitioner challenged the same before the learned Single Judge by filing Special Civil Application No. 29916 of 2007 which was rejected. 4. The main contention of the learned advocate for the appellant is that a censure was already given for the alleged incident of pressurizing the concerned officer for transfer at a particular station through MLA Mr. Pravinbhai Rathod and therefore the very incident could not be made a basis for making any adverse remark in the confidential report. He submitted that in fact no such pressure was made upon the officer by any MLA and that the appellant came to be transferred on administrative ground and had the appellant been transferred on his personal request the transfer allowances would not have been made admissible to him. He submitted that in fact no such pressure was made upon the officer by any MLA and that the appellant came to be transferred on administrative ground and had the appellant been transferred on his personal request the transfer allowances would not have been made admissible to him. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in not holding that once ‘Censure’ is imposed which is not a penalty in the rules on the basis of the same, an employee cannot be denied promotion and therefore even though censure would remain then also promotion could not have been denied. 5. Mr. JK Shah, learned AGP supported the impugned orders and the action of the respondents and submitted that no interference is called for in the matter. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the papers on record including the impugned order, we are of the view that the fact remains that the adverse remarks were not disturbed or expunged by any competent authority. Therefore if there is any adverse remark on record it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue any direction for promotion. The learned Single Judge in para 5 & 8 has observed as under: “5. Therefore, if the adverse remarks are maintained and there is no illegality in the adverse remarks and is entered in the confidential report, the denial of promotion by the authority to the petitioner cannot be said as illegal as sought to be canvassed. 8. In the impugned censure read with the adverse remarks, it has been stated that the transfer was made on administrative ground, but the fact remains that the petitioner did make attempt to influence the officer. Whether the officer was influenced or not is a different aspect, but the attempt on the part of the petitioner to influence the officer for his transfer was the subject matter. Therefore, merely the petitioner was transferred on administrative ground would not result into condoning the action on the part of the petitioner by the same authority and, therefore, the same contention cannot be accepted.” 7. We are of the opinion that no illegality is committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the above order. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference. We are of the opinion that no illegality is committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the above order. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference. However, it is observed that subsequently if the appellant becomes eligible for promotion, his case may be considered by the respondents on merits. Appeal is devoid of any merits and is therefore dismissed accordingly. No costs.