Gujarat High Court
Nitinkumar Vithaldas Sagar vs State Of Gujarat on 26 February, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 197 of 2026
In
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION/120/2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/12755/2014
================================================================
NITINKUMAR VITHALDAS SAGAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
===============================================================
Appearance:
NITINKUMAR V SAGAR(8632) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS KRISHNA DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 26/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard appellant-Mr.Nitinkumar V. Sagar, who is Party-in-Person as well as an Advocate and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Krishna Desai for the respondent No.1. 2.1. The appellant-original petitioner preferred a Special Civil Application No.12755 of 2014 with the following prayers :
"(a) That the honorable court may be Page 1 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director from the date of promotion of Shri S.S.Thakare is junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Accounts Officer Class-1 (junior duty).
(b) That the honorable court be pleased to direct the respondent to remove the names of officers the at serial no.90,93,96,99,125,135,161,168,173,197, 198,204 207 and 212, in the modified seniority list dated 14-10-2009 and be further pleased to remove the name of the officer at serial no.264 in the final seniority list dated 11-3-2011 and placing the petitioner where the petitioner at serial no.240 according to the rotation of the post of promotee under rota-quota system in the modified Page 2 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined final seniority list dated 14-10-2009.
That the honorable court may be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Deputy Director from the date Shri S.S.Thakare who is junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Accounts Officer Class I (Junior Duty).
(c) That the honorable court may be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Deputy Director from the date Shri S.S.Thakare who is junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Accounts Officer Class I (Junior Duty).
(d) Alternatively the honorable court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directing the respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Page 3 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined Director (Senior Duty) on the date of superannuation i.e. on 30-6-2012 That the honorable court may be pleased to hold that not giving promotion to the post of Deputy Director on the date of superannuation and giving promotion in the cadre of Deputy Director by the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and is violate of article 16 of the Constitution of India.
(e) That the honorable court may be pleased to hold that not giving promotion to the post of Deputy Director on the date of superannuation and giving promotion in the cadre of Deputy Director by the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and is violate of article 16 of the Constitution of India.
(f) That the honorable court may be Page 4 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined pleased to hold that method of fixing seniority is illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.
(g) Award costs of this petition.
(h) Grant such other and further relief that the honorable court deems just and proper."
2.2. The learned Single Judge (Coram:Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt) after considering the above prayers, recorded the facts of the case as under :
"4.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that the respondent- government GAD issued orders of promotion dated 30-06-2012 whereby 56 section officers were promoted as Under Secretary and 26 Under Secretaries were Page 5 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined promoted as Dy. Secretary. One of them is superannuated on 30-06-2012. Shri B.M.Chudasama, senior officer of Director of Accounts and Treasuries was promoted on the date of retirement on 31 May 2010. Thus officers were given promotion on the last working day. This is not done in the case of the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 20-03-2012 for promotion to the post of Dy. Director (Senior Duty) from the post of Accounts Officer Class I (Junior Duty). List is approved by GPSC on 15-06-2012. GAD approved on 29th June 2012. Hon'ble Finance Minister made a remark on "Discuss ". The fact that the petitioner retires on 30th June 2012 was not shown in the note before the Hon'ble Finance Minister. After ten days, the matter was Page 6 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined discussed on 10th July 2012 and the orders were issued on the same day and not on 30th June 2012. The respondents acted mechanically showing indifference towards the right of promotion of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been preferred."
2.3. Learned Single Judge, after considering the decision in case of Urmila D. Patel Versus State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2023 (1) GLH 622, dismissed the petition by observing as under :
"6. Considering the direction given in the aforesaid judgment and comparing the facts of the present case, as well as considering the chronology of incident in the present petition, as examined in the aforesaid judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Page 7 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined Court in the case of Urmila D. Patel (supra), this Court is of the opinion that that does not indicate that there was a gross delay and that such delay was with malafide intention to deprive the petitioner or any other candidates from its legitimate dues and hence, according to the Court, the entire procedure has proceeded in due course and only as an unfortunate co-incident, the age of superannuation of the petitioner fell earlier to culmination of such procedure, and therefore, this can only be termed as an unfortunate turn of event, however, the Court does not deem it fit that the case of the petitioner should be considered to have worked on a promotional post on the date of retirement and, therefore, in that view and considering the aforesaid judgment, no case is made out to grant any prayer as prayed for in the present Page 8 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined petition"
2.4. Being aggrieved, the the appellant preferred Misc. Civil Application No.120 of 2026, which is disposed of by the learned Single Judge (Coram:Hon'ble Mr.Justice Maulik J. Shelat) vide order dated 16.01.2026 by observing as under :
"2. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, prima facie, the order which is sought to be reviewed, which was passed by my predecessor on 30.09.2025 in Special Civil Application No.12755 of 2014, cannot be said to be a perverse order which requires interference of this Court while exercising its power of review, inasmuch as, the opening words of the said judgment would indicate Page 9 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined that the said order was passed on a broad consensus and considering the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and having placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Urmila D. Patel vs. State of Gujarat and others - 2023 (1) GLH 622.
3. In view of the aforesaid, no case for review is made out by the applicant. Hence, the present application is rejected."
3. The appellant-party-in-person has submitted the written as well as the oral submissions, which are reproduced as under :
"1. The rejection of the Review Application rests entirely on the premise, that is, on the foundational assumption or basis, that the earlier judgment was passed on a "broad Page 10 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined consensus." With utmost respect, that assumption finds no support, no foundation, and no reflection in the text of the judgment itself. The record simply does not disclose any such consensus.
If Your Lordships kindly examine the opening portion of the judgment dated 30.09.2025, it merely records that the learned advocates were heard, that the grievance regarding delay in finalisation of seniority was identified, and that the learned AGP separately relied upon the decision in Urmila D. Patel v. State of Gujarat. The so-called "joint submission" is confined only to identifying the grievance. The reliance on Urmila D. Patel was an independent submission of the State.
There is no recorded consent in the Page 11 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined judgment. There is no concession, meaning no clear or voluntary admission by the petitioner accepting any adverse legal position or giving up his principal relief. There is no waiver of the principal relief, and there is no agreement recorded for disposal of the matter in those terms. In judicial parlance, a "broad consensus" signifies a clear meeting of minds between the parties on the manner of disposal. It requires a conscious and deliberate concurrence, that is, an informed and intentional agreement and such concurrence must be expressly reflected in the order itself. It cannot be presumed or inferred from a mere narration of submissions. A concession must be clear and unequivocal, leaving no room for doubt. A waiver must be intentional and informed. A consent order must specifically record the Page 12 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined agreement of the parties. In the present case, none of these essential elements are reflected in the judgment dated 30.09.2025. Therefore, the conclusion that the matter was decided on a "broad consensus" is not supported by the record.
Yet, the Review has been rejected solely on the premise that such consensus existed. Therefore, the very foundation of the Review Order dated 16.01.2026 is contrary to the record. This brings the matter squarely, that is, directly and clearly within the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, as the order proceeds on a premise that is not borne out, meaning not supported by, not substantiated by, nor evident from the text of the judgment itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India has held that consent affecting Page 13 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined substantive rights cannot be presumed; it must be clear and expressly recorded. In the present case, no such consent is recorded.
Further, in Shivashakti Sugars Ltd. v. Shree Renuka Sugar Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that failure to adjudicate the real controversy and specific prayers amounts to non-adjudication. Here, the principal prayers relating to correction of seniority and consequential service benefits were not adjudicated. The foundation was shifted to an assumed consensus, which is absent from the record.
2. Ground No.VI Improper Elevation of Joint Submission as "Broad Consensus" by the Court. The Appellant respectfully submits that the learned Single Judge, while Page 14 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined deciding the Special Civil Application and the subsequent Review Application, has treated a joint submission recorded in the pleadings as a "broad consensus"
of the parties. This approach is legally impermissible, as a mere joint submission of counsel cannot substitute for judicial adjudication of the actual facts and claims. The Supreme Court has consistently held that court must independently examine facts, pleadings, and statutory provisions, rather than mechanically treating submissions as determinative (Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, para 15). By elevating the joint submission to a "broad consensus," the Court failed to apply its mind to the principal issues, resulting in a non- speaking, unreasoned order.
3. The principal prayers in the writ Page 15 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined petition were not confined to delay or non-communication, but related to illegality in preparation and revision of seniority lists, continuation of names of officers who had retired or ceased service and allotment of readjustment date to these officers after the ceasing of services, and denial of consequential service and promotional benefits, which constitute the real lis, whereas a joint submission is merely a statement of counsel made to assist the Court and cannot substitute adjudication of the pleadings; lis meaning the real dispute required to be judicially decided.
4. Ground No. II - Failure to Consider Prima Facie Case in Review Jurisdiction, The impugned order rejecting the Review Application suffers from a basic Page 16 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined jurisdictional error. The learned Single Judge did not examine whether the Review satisfied the requirements of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Under Order XLVII Rule 1, a review can be entertained only if there is:
• discovery of new evidence, •or an error apparent on the face of the record, • or any other sufficient reason. The Review Application specifically pointed out an error apparent on the face of the record, namely that the principal prayer was not adjudicated at all. The core grievance related to correction of seniority, inasmuch as certain retired officers were given a readjustment date after they had already ceased to be in service, which blocked the upward movement in the seniority list of the promotees, including the petitioner. It was Page 17 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined further pointed out that the decision in Urmila D. Patel v. State of Gujarat was treated as identical, though the facts of the present case were materially different. The Review also highlighted that preferential treatment was granted to Mr. A.D. Patel, that the delay was attributed to the strategy of the Finance Department, and that because of such delay the applicant was denied promotion before retirement and could not even be granted promotion on the last day of service. However, the impugned order does not examine whether these grounds disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The Judgement order of review application, merely states that the matter was heard, but it does not record what submissions were made by the applicant, nor does it deal with those Page 18 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined submissions.
A statement that "parties were heard"
is not the same as judicial consideration. The order is silent on the reasoning.
Further, instead of applying the proper test for review, the learned Single Judge wrongly applied the standard of "perversity." The term perverse refers to a judgment that is wholly irrational, unreasonable, or contrary to the weight of evidence. However, in a review, the question is not whether the earlier judgment was perverse, but whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record. By adopting the test of perversity, which is appropriate only in appeals and not in review proceedings, the Court applied an incorrect legal standard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury and Page 19 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati has clearly held that review jurisdiction is limited and must be examined strictly within the grounds mentioned in Order XL VII Rule 1 CPC. The impugned order does not show such examination. Similarly, in Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, it has been held that a review court must consider and deal with the grounds raised.
In the present case:
• The statutory grounds were not examined, • The applicant's submissions were not recorded, • The wrong legal test was applied, • And no reasons are reflected in the order.
Therefore, the rejection of the Review Application is contrary to the framework of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and suffers from non-application of mind. Page 20 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined It calls for interference by this Hon'ble Court.
5. Ground No. VII Selective Consideration of Submissions The impugned judgment appears to have proceeded entirely on the submission of the learned AGP, while the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant have neither been recorded nor dealt with. The order merely states that parties were heard. However, being "heard" in a procedural sense is different from being heard in substance. Hearing in substance requires that the Court consider and reflect upon the submissions in its reasoning. The impugned order does not indicate what submissions were made on behalf of the appellant, nor does it assign any reason for rejecting them. Such selective reliance on one side's Page 21 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined submissions, without addressing the other, violates the principle of audi alterm partem that no person should be condemned without fair consideration of his case.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla & Brothers has held that even in summary or oral orders, the Court must show that it has considered the rival submissions. An order must reflect application of mind. In the present case, the absence of any indication that the appellant's submissions were considered renders the judgment non-speaking and legally unsustainable.
6. Ground No. VIII Non-Adjudication of Principal Prayer The principal prayer in the Special Civil Application, relating to Page 22 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined correction of seniority, grant of promotion, and consequential service benefits, was not adjudicated at all. Only the alternate prayer, concerning denial of promotion, was partially considered. While paragraph 3 of the judgment records all prayers, paragraph 4 confines itself solely to the alternate relief. The adjudication was therefore mechanical and incomplete. The core dispute, the principal relief sought by the appellant, was left entirely unexamined. By failing to address the principal prayer, the Court did not determine the real lis, meaning the substantive dispute requiring judicial determination. Such omission amounts to a procedural and jurisdictional defect and warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court in appellate jurisdiction.
Page 23 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined
7. Grounds IX & XI - Mechanical Reliance on Respondent's Submissions and Precedent.
The impugned judgment and the subsequent review order suffer from a fundamental legal infirmity arising from mechanical reliance on the submissions of the Advocate General for the Respondent, without considering or recording the appellant's counter- submissions. Paragraphs of the judgment largely reproduce the AGP's narrative and treat the facts of this case as identical to Urmila D. Patel v. State of Gujarat. However, the Court did not examine whether the facts were truly comparable or verify the appellant's position. In particular, in Urmila D. Patel, Mr. A. D. Patel, the officer was accommodated in a post that did not exist on the date of appointment and given preferential treatment to him in Page 24 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined posting to the proposed to be upgraded post in AUDA. The Finance Department's strategies to appoint Mr. Patel on the post of Auda, delayed and prevented the appellant from receiving promotion before retirement. This distinction is material, yet the Court did not consider it, resulting in prejudice to the appellant. The judgment ignores the statutory framework, service rules, and the chronology of events. Reliance on the AGP's submissions and mechanical application of the precedent deprived the appellant of lawful promotion and consequential service benefits. As held in law, a precedent can guide reasoning but cannot replace judicial evaluation of the specific facts, submissions, and rights of the parties. Such selective and mechanical adjudication, without recording the appellant's case or considering material distinctions, Page 25 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined renders the orders non-speaking, arbitrary, and legally unsustainable, warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court under its Letters Patent jurisdiction.
8. Grounds X, XII & XIII - Chronology, Seniority, Promotion, Procedural Manipulation, and Distinction from Urmila D. Patel Paragraph 6 of the judgment dismisses the appellant's claims by noting the chronology in general and calling the delay "unfortunate," without examining the principal facts regarding seniority, promotion, or retiral benefits. The Court concluded that "no case is made out" merely by citing Urmila D. Patel, without considering the material differences, Here, Mr. A.D. Patel was treated differently, as his posting was on a post that was to Page 26 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined be upgraded, meaning his appointment could only follow the upgradation. In contrast, the appellant and other officers were kept out of promotion due to deliberate procedural strategies by the Finance Department, which delayed their elevation and prevented promotion even before retirement. The Finance Department also bypassed the normal hierarchical process-from Deputy Section Officer to Section Officer, Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Joint Secretary-without justification. While discussions were purportedly held with the Secretary, Finance, the Joint Secretary unilaterally moved the file, noting that the Dy. Director's proposal was pending, effectively reserving the appointment for Mr. A.D. Patel. As a result, other eligible officers, including the appellant, suffered prejudice. Unlike in Urmila D. Patel, Page 27 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined where any delay was treated as unfortunate and without mala fide intent, here the Finance Department's deliberate actions and preferential treatment caused real prejudice. The appellant's superannuation occurred before the process was completed, depriving him of promotion and consequential benefits. Given these facts and procedural irregularities, this cannot be treated as a mere coincidence. The appellant is entitled to be considered for promotion on the date of retirement, and the Court has sufficient material to grant appropriate relief to remedy the prejudice suffered.
9. Ground No.III, IV and V 1, The Appellant respectfully submits that the impugned oral order dated 16.01,2026 is legally unsustainable on Page 28 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined multiple counts.
2, First, the Review Application was disposed of summarily, by an unreasoned oral order, without recording any intelligible reasons, in breach of settled law. Even in summary or oral adjudication, the Court is required to indicate: i) the nature of the controversy, ii) the grounds urged, and
iii) the reasons for rejecting the relief. Here, the order merely concludes that the original order is not "perverse," without addressing the Review grounds or the statutory framework under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. This is a non-speaking disposal, which the law expressly forbids.
3. Second, the Review was decided by a successor Judge who had no hand in the original judgment. Review jurisdiction is intended for judicial self- correction, allowing the authoring Page 29 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined Judge to examine errors apparent on the record. The successor Judge in this case did not independently test the grounds raised, but merely confirmed the original judgment. This deprives the Appellant of the statutory remedy of review and opens the doors of appellate scrutiny under the Letters Patent.
4. Third, the original Special Civil Application dated 30.09.2025, concerning substantive service and seniority rights, was disposed of in a long-pending case by a cursory, unreasoned order. There was no identification of issues, no examination of pleadings, and no application of the statutory framework. This summary disposal violates Articles 226 and 14 of the Constitution and the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which mandate recording Page 30 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined of reasons even in summary proceedings to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. In short, Your Lordships, both the original judgment and the subsequent Review order are arbitrary, non-speaking, and unsustainable in law. The Appellant has been denied an effective statutory remedy, and interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its Letters Patent jurisdiction is warranted.
10. Prayer: In the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove and in view of the grounds urged in the present Letters Patent Appeal, the Appellant most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(A) Allow the present Letters Patent Appeal and set aside and quash the judgment and order dated 30.09.2025 Page 31 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 12755 of 2014, as well as the review judgment and order dated 16.01.2026, as the same suffer from serious errors of law and fact, including: i) non-consideration of material pleadings, documents and reliefs prayed for in the writ petition; (ii) incorrect and erroneous application of the judgment in Urmila D. Patel; and iii) incorrect and unsustainable factual findings recorded in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment;
(B) Remand the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, by directing consideration of all substantive reliefs originally prayed for in paragraph 29 of the Special Civil Application, the complete factual chronology placed on record, and all material documents including DPC Page 32 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined proceedings, Annexure-D, GPSC approval, GAD approval, Finance Department noting and other contemporaneous service records which remained unexamined in the impugned judgment;
(C) In the alternative, be pleased to modify the impugned judgment and issue appropriate directions by adjudicating the Appellant's claim for promotion, seniority, and allied service benefits on the basis of the complete record and in accordance with the applicable statutory rules and settled principles of law;
(D) Allow and grant the reliefs sought in Civil Application No.1 of 2025 for consequential benefits, by directing the Respondents to extend all consequential service, promotional, monetary, and retiral benefits flowing from correction of seniority and grant of promotion, within a time-bound Page 33 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined period;
(E) Be pleased to take on record the explanatory note placed below the names of certain Respondents in the cause title, as well as the annexures filed with the present Letters Patent Appeal, including the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 30.09.2025, the delay-condonation order dated 06.01.2026, and the applicable Recruitment Rules, together with other material explaining the mention of short/initial names and the circumstances relating to service or non-service of notice; and (F) Pass such other and further orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
4. Having heard the appellant-party-in person, Page 34 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined it appears that there are two main grievances raised by him regarding the final seniority list published in the year 1996 wherein, sixteen persons, who had already retired, were considered above the appellant. Reliance was placed on "Annexure-L" to the petition to point out that if these sixteen Officers were not considered senior to the appellant as they had already retired, the appellant would have been promoted to the post of Deputy Director much earlier to the date of his superannuation on 30th June, 2012.
5. It was submitted that a proposal was made for promotion to the Finance Department on 29th June, 2012 and was put up before the Finance Minister and it was discussed but no Page 35 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined decision was taken and the decision for promotion was taken on 10th July, 2012. It was therefore contention of the appellant that if any decision would have been taken on the same day, the appellant would have been promoted on 30th June, 2012, the date on which he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. It was pointed out that in the past also, similar type of promotion on the last date of superannuation was granted by the respondent- State Government from time to time.
6. Considering the submissions made by the appellant-party-in-person, it appears that the appellant has challenged the final seniority list of the year 1996 in the petition, filed in the year 2014, to claim the seniority over Page 36 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined the Officers who had already retired having been shown senior to the appellant. Thus, there is a delay of more than 18 years in challenging such seniority list, which cannot be entertained at the belated stage.
7. With regard to the non-consideration of the appellant for the promotion on the last day of his superannuation is concerned, the facts of the case are squarely covered by the observations made in the case of Urmila D. Patel (Supra) as under :
"5.9 The chronology of incidents, as examined by the Court, does not indicate that there was a gross delay and that such delay was with malafide intention to deprive the petitioner or any other candidates from its Page 37 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined legitimate dues and hence, according to the Court, the entire procedure has proceeded in due course and only as an unfortunate co-incident, the age of superannuation of the petitioner fell earlier to culmination of such procedure, and therefore, this can only be termed as an unfortunate turn of event, however, the Court does not deem it fit that the case of the petitioner, who has retired on 12.11.2011 should be considered to have worked on a promotional post on the date of which, i.e. 12.11.2011, she claims that the decision was formally approved.
6. In that view of the aforesaid discussion, no case is made out for issuing any direction to the respondent-authorities to treat the petitioner to have been posted as GAS Class-I (Selection Scale) from the date Page 38 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined of approval of the panel. The action on the part of the respondent-State does not amount to denial of promotion to the petitioner, as it is with the due passage of time that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation coincidently falling ahead of the order of promotion granted. The petition is therefore and hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged."
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Krishna Desai for the respondent No.1 submitted that the Letters Patent Appeal No.1139 of 2023 was preferred against the decision in case of Urmila D. Patel (Supra) and the same is dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2024.
9. In view of the above facts, the only case Page 39 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/197/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined of the appellant that he could have been promoted, cannot be considered as there is no gross delay and there is nothing to indicate that the delay was caused due to any mala-fide intention to deprive the appellant or any other candidate from its legitimate promotion and the entire procedure appears to have been done in due course and only as an unfortunate co-incident, the age of superannuation of the appellant falls before issuance of the promotion order on 10th July, 2012.
10. The Appeal therefore, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) PALAK Page 40 of 40 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 20:37:16 IST 2026