This matter was listed on 17.06.1993 and it was ordered to be placed with Special Civil Application No.3343 of 1993.
On 07.09.2009, this Court (Coram: Akil Kureshi, J.) has passed the following order:
Petition was filed against the action of the respondent in not considering the petitioner eligible for appointment to ex-cadre post of DSP/DCP. It is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant time he was holding Class-I post and was, therefore, eligible for consideration to ex-cadre post of DSP/DCP which is also Class I post. As per the petitioner, selection to such promotional posts is to be made on the basis of number of vacancies available, seniority of the candidate and proved merit and efficiency. It is further his case that the requirement of completion of 8 years of service as a condition precedent for promotion from Class II to Class-I posts stipulated in Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment Rules cannot be applied to him since he is already holding Class I post.
2. Though affidavit in reply dated 21.10.93 came to be filed on behalf of the respondents, on this issue except stating that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed on ex-cadre post, no further revelations are made.
3. By order dated 28.4.93 while issuing rule in the matter, by way of interim relief, it was directed that the respondent will consider the petitioner for appointment to ex-cadre post of DSP/DCP without applying 8 year rule. In the affidavit reply filed by the respondents, however, it is stated as under:
"5.
The selection committee takes into account the number of vacancy and seniority of Officers applying the criteria of proved merit and efficiency. On availability of required number of officers on the select list, the Committee stopped further consideration. The petitioner has not been considered because his turn does not come as per seniority list. The question of apprehension that he has not been considered due to application of criteria of completion of eight years therefore does not arise."
4. In view of the above statement in the affidavit in reply I find that the question of eligibility of the petitioner has lost its significance. Whether the requirement of service of 8 years should have been insisted upon or not need not be gone into in this petition since pursuant to the interim direction issued by this Court, even after considering the petitioner eligible for appointment, looking to the availability of number of ex-cadre posts and eligible suitable candidates, the petitioner's turn did not arrive and therefore, no further order is required to be passed in this petition. The petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated.
In view of the aforesaid order passed in Special Civil Application No.3343 of 1993, this petition is also stands disposed of.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.] ..mitesh..
Top