SCA/862219/1992 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8622 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= BINDHYCHAL LAL BHAGWATI LAL SHRIVASTAVA - Petitioner(s) Versus OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NIRAD BUCH for MR ND NANAVATI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS VASUBEN P SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 16/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner by way of this petition, has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30th December, 1991 passed by the respondent. SCA/862219/1992 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. The short facts of the case are :- 2.1. The petitioner was working as a Boiler Operator with the respondent in the pay-scale of Rs.193-284/-. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was eligible for promotion to the higher post, the respondent has not promoted him to the higher post. The petitioner therefore, preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 5441 of 1983 before this Court. However, the said petition was withdrawn upon the statement being made by the respondents that the case of the petitioner for promotion will be considered by them. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, vide order dated 8th March, 1984, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Boiler Foreman. The grievance of the petitioner is that similarly situated person have been granted promotion from the year 1980 and, therefore, the respondents ought to have granted promotion to the petitioner from the year 1980. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has withheld the promotion of the petitioner to the higher post. Being aggrieved by it, the petitioner made several representations to the respondents to grant him promotion to the higher post. The petitioner thereafter received letter dated 30th December, 1991, wherein it is stated that the petitioner does not possess SCA/862219/1992 3/4 JUDGMENT the requisite qualification for promotion to the higher post. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he was eligible for promotion to the higher post, the respondent has not promoted him to the higher post. On perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has not considered the case of the petitioner for promotion on the ground that criteria of qualification for promotion is Engineering discipline. Thus, as the petitioner was not fulfilling the basic norms of promotion i.e. graduate in Engineering and/or Diploma holder, the respondents has not granted him promotion to the higher post. Looking to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion, that the respondent was completely justified in not granting promotion to the petitioner to the higher post. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere in this petition in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] SCA/862219/1992 4/4 JUDGMENT /phalguni/