Gujarat High Court
Lalji Kanji Rajgor vs State Of Gujarat on 26 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7346/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7346 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7348 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7349 of 2017
==========================================================
LALJI KANJI RAJGOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVANG D TRIVEDI(2503) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 - STATE IN ALL
THE THREE MATTERS
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 26/08/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. The present captioned petitions are filed by the respective petitioners by claiming certain reliefs as prayed in the respective petitions, which reads thus:
"A. The Hon'ble Court would be pleased to admit and allow the present petition.
B. The Hon'ble Court would be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for the promotion in the Cadre of Class-III by allowing the petitioner to appear in the necessary departmental examination to retain the promotion in the cadre of class III and further would be pleased to direct the respondents Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:51:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7346/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025 undefined to grant / release the increment in salary along with its arrears in the interest of justice.
C. Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition the Hon'ble Court would be pleased to stay the hands of the respondent authorities from passing any coercive order of reversion reverting the petitioner from the Cadre of Class- III to the Cadre of Class-IV employee In the alternative Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition the Hon'ble Court would be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain status quo.
D. Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition the Hon'ble Court would be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the Sub Service Department examination being conducted by Department from time to time.
E. The Hon'ble Court would be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. Heard Mr. Devang Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Parth Patel, learned AGP for the respondent-State in respective petitions.
Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:51:08 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7346/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025 undefined
3. Considering the submissions made at the bar and considering the facts of the present case, which are almost identical to the facts of Special Civil Application No. 5424 of 2017, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order on 03.05.2018, relevant paragraphs of the said order are 1 to 7, which read as under:
"1. The petitioners, by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/order for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the respondent, whereby the petitioners were reverted to the post of Peon, without any prior intimation or show cause notice.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under : ] 2.1 The petitioners were initially recruited as Peon on 01.04.1982 and 09.11.1982, respectively. Thereafter, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Junior Clerks vide orders dated 27.03.1992 and 11.10.1993, respectively. Thereafter, the petitioners were further promoted to the post of Maintenance Surveyors vide orders dated 15.06.2005 and 20.04.2001, respectively.
2.2 Thereafter, in the case of petitioner No. 1 after a lapse of about 12 years of service as Maintenance Surveyor, and in the case of petitioner No.2 after a lapse of 16 years of service as Maintenance Surveyor, on the verge of their retirement from services, vide impugned order dated Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:51:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7346/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025 undefined 09.03.2017, the petitioners were reverted to the post of Peon on the ground of non-passing of pre-service training examination, without any prior intimation, show cause notice or affording an opportunity of being heard personally. Hence, the present petition is filed.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that initially, the petitioners were appointed as Peons in the year 1982. Thereafter, they were promoted to the post of Junior Clerks vide orders dated 27.03.1992 and 11.10.1993, respectively. It is submitted that the Government Resolution dated 13.02.1991 read with Government Resolution dated 16.08.1990, provisions of pre-services departmental examination has been applicable to the office of the Land Records. Prior to it, there were no such provisions. The office of the Land Records has been informed about the said provisions in the year 1993- 1994. It is further submitted that while issuing promotion order dated 27.03.1992 in favour of the petitioner No.1, no condition of passing of pre- service departmental examination has been incorporated in the said order. While issuing promotion order dated 11.10.1993 in favour of the petitioner No.2, in the said order, the condition No.3 indicates about passing of pre-service departmental examination, failing which necessary action will be taken against the petitioner which will be binding to the petitioner. However, no action has been taken against the petitioner No. 2 for non- passing of pre-service departmental examination. On the contrary, vide order dated 20.04.2001, petitioner No.2 was promoted to the post of Maintenance Surveyor and in the said order, no Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:51:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7346/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025 undefined such condition of passing of pre-service departmental examination has been incorporated.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 has served for about 13 years as Junior Clerk and served as Maintenance Surveyor for about 12 years. Similarly, petitioner No.2 served for about 08 years as Junior Clerk and served as Maintenance Surveyor for about 16 years. It is further submitted that on the verge of retirement from service on superannuation i.e. 30.06.2017, after completion of satisfactory services for about 25 years on higher promotional posts of Junior Clerk/Maintenance Surveyor, vide impugned order dated 09.03.2017, the petitioners were reverted to the post of Peon without prior intimation or issuance of show cause notice or affording an opportunity of being heard in person. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate for the petitioners relied on the following case laws:
1) M.A.Hameed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2001 (9) SCC page 261, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that reversion should be carried out within reasonable time.
2) Dayalji Dhanjibhai Kanjariya Vs. Gujarat Ayurved University (Special Civil Application No. 4836 of 2003) reported in 2016 JX(Guj) 911, wherein this Court has quashed and set aside the order of reversion of the petitioner therein on the ground of non-giving of an opportunity of hearing to the Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:51:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7346/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025 undefined petitioner.
3) State of Gujarat Vs. C.G.Raiyani, (Second Appeal No. 81 of 1986) reported in 1994 (2) GCD 661, wherein it is held that no status of person can be adversely affected without giving him opportunity of hearing.
5. Relying upon the above cited case laws, the learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the action of reverting the petitioners to the post of peon after completion of satisfactory services for about 25 years, that too, without affording an opportunity of hearing, on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal, unconstitutional, contrary to settled proposition of law and in violation of the principles of natural justice, and therefore, the impugned order dated 09.03.2017 deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioners may be given all pensionary benefits and pension as per the last pay drawn by them on the post of Maintenance Surveyor.
6. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent- tate, relying upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, submits that as per the Government Resolution dated 13.02.1991 read with Government Resolution dated 16.08.1990, it is mandatory to pass the pre-service departmental examination prior to promotion to the post of Junior Clerk. The petitioners have not passed the said pre- service departmental examination prior to their promotion or thereafter. Only on the ground of Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:51:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7346/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025 undefined promotion, no right can culminate in favour of petitioners when its inception is contrary to law. Therefore, the respondents authorities have rightly reverted the petitioners to their original post of Peon.
7. Regard being had to the above submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the promotion order in favour of the petitioner No.1 does not contain any condition or stipulation of passing the departmental examination. In the case of petitioner No.2, though there was condition of passing pre- service departmental examination in the promotion order, the respondent authorities have not taken action for non- passing of pre-service departmental examination. On the contrary, the petitioner No.2 was promoted to the post of Maintenance Surveyor in the year 2001. In the affidavit-in- reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 in Para 4 at Page No.4 it is stated that "True it may be that such aspect of the petitioners not having cleared the departmental examination was overlooked at the relevant point of time and promotional orders were also issued." Moreover, in the promotion orders in favour of the petitioners to the post of Maintenance Surveyor, no such condition of passing the pre-service departmental examination has been incorporated. As per the principles of natural justice, the respondent authorities are duty bound to give intimation or issue show cause notice to the petitioners and to give reasonable opportunity of personal hearing prior to issuance of the impugned order. In the Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:51:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7346/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025 undefined present case, the respondent authorities failed to do so and issued the reversion order after completion of satisfactory services for about 25 years which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.A.Hameed Vs. State of Andhra Predesh reported in 2001(9) SCC Page 261. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed and impugned order dated 09.03.2017 is required to be quashed and set aside on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice and also on the ground of unreasonable delay in passing the order of reversion by giving retrospective effect of the Government Resolution dated 13.02.1991 read with Government Resolution dated 16.08.1990, though the provisions of the said Government Resolution were not in existence in the said department at the time of appointment/promotion of the petitioners. The issue involved in the present petition is also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.A.Hameed (supra). However, ignoring above referred settled legal proposition the respondent authorities have passed the impugned order which deserves to be quashed and set aside."
4. Learned advocates for the parties have also agreed that the petitioners are now retired and getting the pentionary benefits.
5. In view of the above, since the petitioners are getting necessary benefits as prayed in the present petition, other Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:51:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7346/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025 undefined aspects of the petition are not required to be considered any further as essentially, the grievance of the petitioners is satisfied. However, it is open for the respective petitioner to point out to the respondent-Authority if any arrears is outstanding, which shall be paid by the Authority after necessary verification.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:51:08 IST 2025