Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Suresh Arjanbhai Ahir – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat Thro Secretary & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 16216 of 2012
Decided on : 19-03-2024
Promotion - Seniority - Gujarat Police Manual, Sec.28(1) of Bombay Police Act - The court discussed the petitioner's entitlement to promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) and the maintenance of his seniority in Jamnagar District. The court considered the punishment orders faced by the petitioner and the transfer of his service condition to Surendranagar District. The court found that the petitioner's promotion to the post of ASI in 2017 was justified, as it was granted after the completion of all punishment orders and on the recommendation of the District Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police constable, challenged the respondents' action for not considering him for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) and for not maintaining his seniority in Jamnagar District after his transfer to Surendranagar District. The petitioner claimed that his transfer had adversely affected his right to promotion and disrupted his family and social life.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's promotion to the post of ASI in 2017 was justified, as it was granted after the completion of all punishment orders and on the recommendation of the District Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar. The court also noted that the petitioner had not disclosed the fact of facing different punishment orders before the court, which led to the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the petitioner's entitlement to promotion as ASI, the maintenance of his seniority in Jamnagar District, and the legality of the respondents' actions in not considering his case for promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's promotion to the post of ASI in 2017 was justified, as it was granted after the completion of all punishment orders and on the recommendation of the District Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar. The court also found that the petitioner had not disclosed the fact of facing different punishment orders before the court, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner's promotion to the post of ASI in 2017 was justified, and that the petition did not deserve to be entertained.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has preferred present petition, under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned action on the part of the respondents for not considering the case of the petitioner for the promotion of the Assistant Sub Inspector, with below mentioned prayer:-
(B) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to have his seniority in Jamnagar District being the parent district and the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner as ASI along with the persons who are promoted by order dated 20.9.2012 is unjust, improper, bad in law in as much as the persons namely Shailesh Ramniklal Babaria, Bhupendrasinh Babubha Jadeda, Aniruddhsinh Ranjitsinh Jhala and Kishorchandra Narandas Gohil and Bipinkumar Jethalal Vala, Nalinbharthi Bhimbharthi Bharthi are the persons junior to petitioner and yet they are promoted under the said order dated 20.9.2012 and be further pleased to direct the respondents to maintain seniority of the petitioner in Jamnagar District before Shailesh Ramniklal Babaria and further direct the respondents to grant promotion as ASI to the petitioner with effect from 20.9.2012 with all consequential benefits including arrears of promotional post.
(BB) Quash and set aside order dated 19.04.2013 annexure AA to this petition and direct the respondents to post the petitioner in Jamnagar District in light of the decision of this Hon'ble Court in LPA no. 2277 of 2010 in SCA 3739 of 2010 dated 17.02.2011 and decision no.1030 of 2011 in SCA 12765 of 2010 dated 14.07.2011 and LPA no. 1126 of 2012 dated 10.09.2012 and also in light rule 152 and 153 of Gujarat Police Manual and Sec.28(1) of Bombay Police Act and be further pleased to direct the respondents to retransfer petitioner to his parents District Jamanagar as Unarmed Head Constable in interest of justice.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately consider case of petitioner for promotion to the post of ASI on the basis of his seniority before Shailesh Ramniklal Babaria in Jamnagar District and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(D) Grant such other and further reliefs deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."
2. The brief facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was performing duties as Unarmed Head Police Constable at Jamnagar and by order dated 17.3.2012 passed by respondent No.3, on the basis of the letter dated 9.3.2012 of the Superintendent of Police Jamnagar, he was transferred to Surendranagar District. After joining his duty at Surendranagar District, petitioner had made detailed representation to Respondent No.3 on 27.4.2012 for replacing him at Jamnagar. Thereafter, as no response was given to his representation by respondent No.3, he made representation to respondent No.2 on 20.8.2012. However, the said representations have not been answered by respondent authorities.
2.1 It appears that the petitioner had joined service on 14.2.1981 as Unarmed Constable and was promoted as Unarmed Head constable on 16.6.2006 and because of his transfer from Jamnagar District, he was deprived of his right of promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector and juniors to him were promoted ignoring the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector and, therefore, he has suffered without any order of punishment and also without any departmental inquiry, though he has rendered 31 years dotless service and there is no any departmental inquiry against him. In view of his transfer from his parent district i.e. Jamnagar to Surendranagar, his right to promotion in the Jamnagar district has been adversely affected and his family and social life has been disturbed.
2.2 In view of aforesaid facts, the petitioner has filed present petition.
3. I have heard Mr. Hasit Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Megha Chitlia, learned Assistant Government Pleader fo
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) in 2017 was justified, as it was granted after the completion of ....
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and denial of timely consideration constitutes a violation of these rights.
Denial of promotion based on mere inquiry without formal charges is arbitrary and violates the right to be considered for promotion under Article 16(1).
Post-acquittal and exoneration, employee entitled to retrospective promotion from juniors' date, rejecting sealed cover permanence.
Promotion cannot be denied solely based on the number of past punishments without considering their nature and timing, ensuring equal treatment under Article 14.
Supersession of senior eligible officer for promotion without recorded reasons or hearing violates Articles 14, 16 and natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
