SCA/1110/1988 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1110 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= VJ PATEL - Petitioner Versus G E B & 5 - Respondents ========================================================= Appearance : MR DS VASAVADA for Petitioner MR MD PANDYA for Respondent : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3,5 - 6. DELETED for Respondent(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date : 18/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was working as Executive Engineer with the Gujarat Electricity Board, was SCA/1110/1988 2/5 JUDGMENT aggrieved by non-grant of promotion to him to the post of Superintending Engineer. He, therefore, has moved this petition making following prayers: “A) To allow this petition with costs by issuing appropriate writs to the respondent No.1 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (B) To please hold that the action of the respondent No.1 in not giving promotion to the post of the Superintending Engineer to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (C) To please direct the respondent No.1 to promote the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineering w.e.f.24th August, 1987 and to pay all the benefits, pay scales and all other consequential benefits attached to the post of Superintending Engineer including the benefit of seniority. (D) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the respondent No.1 may be directed that the junior to the petitioner should not be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer and the promotions of the respondents No.2 to 6 to the post of Superintending Engineer should be treated as SCA/1110/1988 3/5 JUDGMENT provisional and may be made subject to the decision of this Special Civil Application. (E) Grant such other and further relief that may be deemed just and proper.” 2. Heard the learned advocate Mr. D.S.Vasavada for the petitioner. 3. The principal reliefs sought are two-fold:- (i) to hold that the action of respondent No.1 in not giving promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, and (ii) to direct the respondent No.1 to promote the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 24th August, 1987 and to pay all benefits etc. 4. It appears that a memo was issued to the petitioner on 15.5.1984 containing adverse-remarks in his confidential report for the year 1983(Ann.K.) and another communication dated 11th September, 1987 about adverse-remarks in his confidential report for the year 1986. The appeal preferred by the petitioner SCA/1110/1988 4/5 JUDGMENT before the Appellate Authority came to be dismissed. The affidavit-in-reply indicates that the post of Superintending Engineer is a senior position and the incumbent to the post is required to exercise adequate supervision and control and also to provide guidance to the staff working under him. These factors were considered while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the said post, which is to be decided on merit-cum-seniority. 5. It is a settled proposition of law that the reliefs sought by the petitioner, in the form of grant of promotion, cannot be granted by the Court. The case of the petitioner has already been considered by the respondent-authority and, therefore, direction to the said authority to promote him cannot be issued. Under the circumstances the petition must fail and stands dismissed. 6. It transpires that, by now, the petitioner has already retired and, therefore, the cause may not survive, except the financial benefits, which he might have got had he been promoted. The case of the SCA/1110/1988 5/5 JUDGMENT petitioner has already been considered by the respondent-authority. However, if he still wants to make a representation again to the appropriate authority, it is upto him to do so. Rule is discharged. No costs. [A.L.DAVE,J.] (patel)