Gujarat High Court
D vs State on 7 February, 2011
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2969/2010 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2969 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12770 of 2010
=========================================================
D
V PRADHAN - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SP HASURKAR for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR NIRAG PATHAK, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 07/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) The present Appeal arises against the order dated 10th December 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.12770/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.
Heard Mr.Hasurkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant has retired from service on 28th February 2009 and the petition was preferred within reasonable period, therefore, it could not be said to be barred by delay as observed by the learned Single Judge. It has been submitted that the original petitioner had good case on merits and if the merit is considered, the petitioner would have been entitled for the relief as prayed for in the main Special Civil Application. He submitted that, therefore, this Appeal.
On the aspect of merits of the Special Civil Application, the learned counsel submitted that once his promotion was recommended by the departmental promotion committee and was also recommended by the GPSC, subsequent punishment of reprimand could not be considered for depriving the promotion. He submitted that same is the situation for confidential remarks, which is after he was recommended for promotion. It was, therefore, submitted that if decision for denial of promotion was bad in law on merits, the same was required to be quashed and set-aside by this Court and, therefore, the learned counsel concluded that there was a strong case on merits.
We may first consider the aspect of merits of the main Special Civil Application. It appears from the decision dated 7th May 2010, copy whereof is produced at Annexure-'N' of the main Special Civil Applicatino, that after the promotion of the petitioner was recommended by the departmental promotion committee but before it was given effect, as there was departmental proceedings, the actual effect was not given for promotion. It is admitted position that thereafter in the departmental proceedings ultimately the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad imposed punishment of reprimand vide order dated 6th June 2008 and that punishment is not reversed by any higher authority. Further, after conclusion of the departmental inquiry and the proceedings, with a view to consider the eligibility of the petitioner with retrospective date, the case of the petitioner was placed before the departmental promotion committee and the departmental promotion committee, after considering all confidential reports including the adverse remarks made in the confidential report of the original petitioner for the period 2007-2008, he was not recommended for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Under these circumstances, his case was not considered for promotion to the said post.
The attempt to contend that the departmental promotion committee, for the first time took decision on 6th November 2007 and the same came to be approved by the GPSC on 28th November 2008 and, therefore, subsequent show-cause notice of the disciplinary proceedings dated 3rd May 2008 and the order passed therein dated 6th June 2008 cannot be considered, even if further examination it appears that it is not on account of the imposition of punishment in the disciplinary proceedings of reprimand but it appears that there were adverse remarks for the respective period of 2007-2008 (from 18th October 2007 to 31st March 2008), which were considered at the time of reconsideration of the matter and the same resulted into non-recommendation of the promotion. The said period of adverse remark is in any case prior to 6th November 2007 and it is not for the period later to the earlier recommendation. Under these circumstances, if the departmental promotion committee has found the case not fit for promotion on account of adverse remarks in the confidential report of the petitioner, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the departmental promotion committee and hold that the petitioner was fit to be recommended for promotion to the higher post. The contention that subsequent material could not have been considered is on non-existence premise inasmuch as the adverse remarks in the confidential report were for the period which was required to be considered while considering the case for promotion by the departmental promotion committee.
In view of the aforesaid, we find that there was no merit in the main Special Civil Application itself and the Special Civil Application was deserving dismissal.
In view of the aforesaid finding, we find that even if the aspect of delay is leniently viewed, no useful purpose would be served in considering the matter again after condonation of delay or no useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter for consideration of the case on merits.
Hence, we find that the ultimate decision taken by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the petition does not call for interference. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is meritless and, therefore, dismissed.
(Jayant Patel, J.) (J.C.Upadhyaya, J.) /moin Top