Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 2190
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
RAJESHKUMAR KANTILAL RAMI (DECEASED) – Petitioner
Versus
DIRECTOR – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 21235 of 2016
Decided On : 15-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: HARESH J. TRIVEDI
For the Respondents: POOJA ASHAR, NIRAV C. THAKKAR
Promotion eligibility requires meeting specific criteria, including holding the necessary position and qualifications, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Promotion - Challenge to promotion of respondent no. 3 to Head Examiner on grounds of seniority and caste certificate - Petitioner claims entitlement to promotion based on qualifications and seniority - Court finds no merit in petitioner's claims as he does not fulfill criteria for promotion. (Paras 2, 3.1, 8.2, 9)
(B) Caste Certificate - Validity - Respondent no. 3's caste certificate verified and deemed genuine by authorities - Court upholds promotions based on verified qualifications and seniority. (Paras 5.1, 8.3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Proof Reader, challenges the promotion of respondent no. 3 to Head Examiner, claiming seniority and qualifications. The petitioner alleges respondent no. 3 was unlawfully promoted based on caste.
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the respondent no. 3's promotions were valid and based on verified qualifications and seniority, dismissing the petitioner's claims.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the caste certificate and the petitioner's eligibility for promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondent no. 3's promotions were legitimate, supported by verified documentation, and that the petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria for promotion.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2- State and Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3.
2. By way of the present Petition, petitioner herein has invoked Article-226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for the following reliefs:
“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or quo warranto or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the promotion to the post of Head Examiner dated 01.04.2016 given to the respondent no. 3.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of Head Examiner from the same date as that of the promotion given to respondent no. 3 and pay for all benefits applicable after promotion.
(BB) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to give notional promotion to the husband of the petitioner on the post of Head Examiner as that of promotion given to respondent no 3 and pay all other consequential benefits applicable after promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2016; including difference of pay with all admissible allowances from 01.04.2016 to 30.6.2020, alongwith difference of pension admissible on such revised pay with other consequential benefits, with further direction to fix her family pension on the revised pay scale.
(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to grant stay against any further implementation and operation of the promotion order dated 01-04-16 for the post of Head Examiner given to respondent no. 3.
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper, in the interest of justice.
(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant costs of this petition.”
3.1. Briefly stated that, the petitioner herein was working with the respondent no. 2- Government Central Press, Gandhinagar on the post of Proof Reader. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as Head Examiner in accordance with the rules and has been granted the pay scale of Senior Examiner, on 01.09.2010.
3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 3 is a junior to the petitioner herein from the beginning and is possessing lesser qualification compared to the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act (‘RTI’ for short) with respect to the educational qualification of the respondent no. 3 as well as exact caste position of the respondent no. 3, but the said information was not parted with and in view thereof, the petitioner preferred Appeal, which was referred back to Manager Gandhinagar Printing Press for doing the needful. No reply has been received by the petitioner from the appellate authority. In light of the aforesaid, the petitioner herein has filed the present petition seeking the reliefs as referred above.
4.1. Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that the respondent no. 3 herein has entered the service as ‘Copy Holder’ as a Scheduled Tribe (S.T.) candidate. It is submitted that, the respondent no. 3’s caste, i.e. ‘Majirana’ or ‘Marwadi Bhil’ do not fall in S.T. category in Gujarat origin. Reliance is placed on the information received from the Commissioner, Adijati Vikas, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar by communication dated 02.07.2015 and placing reliance on the aforesaid submission, it is submitted that the respondent no. 3 was unlawfully recruited as Copy Holder, on reserved seat for Scheduled Tribe candidate. It is submitted that, the seniority of the petitioner herein is ahead of the respondent no. 3 and in view thereof, the petitioner challenges the promotion of the respondent no. 3 to the post of Head
