Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1105 (GUJ)

Popatbhai Chandabhai Pargi v. Principal Secretary

2017-06-30

B.N.KARIA, M.R.SHAH

body2017
ORDER : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and as such arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, all these appeals are decided and disposed of together by this common order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge passed in respective Special Civil Application Nos. 1375 of 2016, 3943 of 2016, 3945 of 2016, 948 of 2016 and 1370 of 2016, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Special Civil Applications has dismissed the said Special Civil Applications preferred by the original petitioners, the original petitioners have preferred present Letters Patent Appeals. 2.1 That the appellants herein original petitioners were serving as Forest Guards in the Forest Department, State of Gujarat. That thereafter, they came to be promoted as the Foresters without clearing Departmental Examination as provided in the statutory Rules. The decision of the State Government to promote the appellants herein-original petitioners and others without asking them to clear the departmental examination led to number of litigations. Those Forest Guards, who actually cleared the departmental examination, were not being given promotion as the Foresters and, therefore, they came before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 880 of 2015 and other allied Special Civil Applications with a complaint that the employees like the present petitioners could not have been promoted without clearing the departmental examination. All those Special Civil Applications came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge by common judgment and order dated 1.12.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9880 of 2015 and other allied Special Civil Applications and the learned Single Judge observed as under: (a) None of the petitioners can assert as a matter of right that they should be promoted to the posts of Foresters without insisting for passing the departmental examination. (b) The amended rule, which provides for clearing or passing of the departmental examination, is in no manner illegal or arbitrary. (c) In the facts of the case, none of the vested rights or accrued rights could be said to have been taken away by the amended rules much to the prejudice of the Beat Guards seeking promotion. (b) The amended rule, which provides for clearing or passing of the departmental examination, is in no manner illegal or arbitrary. (c) In the facts of the case, none of the vested rights or accrued rights could be said to have been taken away by the amended rules much to the prejudice of the Beat Guards seeking promotion. (d) A rule, which operates in future, so as to govern future rights of those already in service, cannot be assailed on the ground of retroactivity as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (e) All those Beat Guards, who have cleared the departmental examination in the prescribed period and chances, may be considered for being promoted to the posts of Foresters. All those Beat Guards who have not been able to clear the departmental examination, shall be given an opportunity to appear in the same, and if they are able to clear, then they may also be considered for being promoted to the posts of Foresters. (f) All those Beat Guards, who have been promoted to the posts of Foresters without clearance of the departmental examination, shall be reverted to their original posts at the earliest. 2.2 That thereafter, the original petitioners herein came to be reverted consequent to the order passed by this Court passed in aforesaid Special Civil Applications. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of reversion to their original post i.e. Forest Guards, original petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court by way of aforesaid Special Civil Application Nos. 1375 of 2016, 3943 of 2016, 3945 of 2016, 948 of 2016 and 1370 of 2016 whereby by impugned judgment and order learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Special Civil Applications. Hence, respective original petitioners have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals. 3. Heard Shri Parmar, learned advocate for the appellants herein-original petitioners and Shri Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State. 3.1 It is not in dispute that as per the statutory rules for promotion to the post of Foresters, a candidate must have passed/cleared the Departmental Promotional Examination. It is not in dispute that the appellants herein-original petitioners did not pass/clear the Departmental Promotional Examination and despite the same they were promoted to the post of Forester. 3.1 It is not in dispute that as per the statutory rules for promotion to the post of Foresters, a candidate must have passed/cleared the Departmental Promotional Examination. It is not in dispute that the appellants herein-original petitioners did not pass/clear the Departmental Promotional Examination and despite the same they were promoted to the post of Forester. That in the earlier round of litigation, the learned Single Judge of this Court declared the said action illegal and arbitrary and de-hors the statutory rules. Therefore, thereafter when the respective appellants-respective petitioners came to be reverted to his post of Forest Guards, it cannot be said that the same was either illegal and/or arbitrary. The same was absolutely in accordance with the provisions of statutory rules and also in consonance with the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9880 of 2015 and other allied Special Civil Application. As such, orders of reversion reverting the original petitioners from the post of Forester to Forest Guards was consequent upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in passed in Special Civil Application No. 9880 of 2015 and other allied Special Civil Applications. 4. Learned advocate for the appellants-original petitioners is not in a position to dispute that at the relevant time when they were promoted to the post of Forester, they were not having requisite qualification of Forester/not cleared the Departmental Promotional Examination, which was required as per the statutory rules. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the appellants herein-original petitioners were reverted and same has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error which calls for the interference of this Court in exercise of intra Court appellate jurisdiction. At this stage, it is required to be noted that some of the appellants-original petitioners have subsequently appeared in Departmental Promotional Examination also. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these appeals fail and deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.