SCA/25951/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 25951 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD ====================================== 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 ? ====================================== THE STATE OF GUJARAT Versus PRAHLADBHAI H PATEL ====================================== Appearance : Mr S.P.Hasurkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the Petitioner MR IS SUPEHIA for the Respondent ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Date : 17/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the State. The rules governing the promotions on the post of Rector-cum-Superintendent which were put on the Statute Book by a Resolution of the State Government dated 10th September 1963 read as under:- SCA/25951/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT “... In deserving cases, the Government may relax educational qualifications and/or experience. Or (b) By promotion of candidates of proved merits and efficiency from amongst persons holding technical posts in the department in the cadre of Rs.100-8-140-10-200 or Rs.100-140 (pre-revised) and who have put in at least 3 years' service and who possess qualification prescribed in Rule 1(A)(I).” On bare reading of the aforesaid Rules, as produced herein above, it becomes clear that it consists that a person can be promoted to the post of Rector-cum-Superintendent if he has proved merit and efficiency. Seniority is not made the criteria for granting promotion. The present petitioner having not been promoted and persons those senior to him but lacking in required educational qualifications having been promoted approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the first instance did not pass any favourable order, but in review, noticed that the persons who did not have educational qualifications and also proved efficiency and merit have been promoted and the petitioner who claims to be a person of proved merit and efficiency and one who possessed the qualifications has not been permitted. The Tribunal ordered the promotion of the petitioner with the deemed date like other employees who were promoted. What stands out boldly is that those who were promoted were not educationally qualified. This was a draw-back and those promotions could not have been made. But, since those promotions are not being under challenge are not interfered with. Then, a person who was qualified and had proved efficiency and merit could not have been denied promotion because there was a promotional avenue available and he deserves to be considered. Having not been considered, the rightful claim of the petitioner is denied. In that view of the matter, if the SCA/25951/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT petitioner has been favoured with a deemed date of promotion then the same cannot be said to be illegal, because, law envisages that persons with the qualification, if are meritorious and efficient, then, they should be granted the promotion. Such promotion having been ordered to be granted, no interference is called for. In that view of the matter, there is no force in the petition. The petition is dismissed. (Bhagwati Prasad, J.) *mohd