1. By way of this petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer is made that the respondent-authorities be directed to promote the petitioner as senior clerk from 22.7.1986 with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was actually promoted as senior clerk in the year 1992. The basis of claiming deemed date of promotion in the cadre of senior clerk from the year 1986 is that the seniority of the petitioner is not counted from the year of 1971 when the petitioner had joined the service as a junior clerk but is counted from the year 1976 when the petitioner had joined in Ahmedabad circle on his transfer from Baroda circle.
2. Heard Mr. V.N. Sheth, learned counsel for the petitioner. This matter was heard on earlier dates also and Ms. Jyoti Mehta, learned A.G.P. for respondent-authorities was heard at length.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the date of joining of the petitioner as junior clerk was 1.9.1971 and the petitioner ought to have been assigned seniority from 1971 which would have earned him promotion in the year 1986 as senior clerk as claimed in this petition. Therefore, the point for consideration before this Court is whether the seniority claimed by the petitioner in the cadre of junior clerk from the year 1971 should have been given to him or not. In this regard following facts are relevant.
The petitioner had joined the service as junior clerk on 1.9.1971 in the Land Records Department and was initially posted and was working in Baroda office under Baroda circle.
The petitioner desired to be posted at his native place Kalol (District-Mehsana), the place which falls under Ahmedabad circle which is different from Baroda circle, where the petitioner was working.
It is an undisputed position that the cadre of junior clerk in which the petitioner was working is a circle based cadre in the respondent department. Employees of such cadres are generally not transferred inter-circle. Ahmedabad and Baroda are two different circles in the same department, as noted above. The seniority in the cadre of junior clerk is maintained circle wise.
It is settled position that if the authorities take decision to transfer an employee from one circle to another circle for administrative exigencies, without the wish of the concerned employee, he cannot be asked to start his seniority afresh in the new circle. Under these circumstances therefore, the relevant consideration would be, as to whether it was the action of the authorities to transfer the petitioner from Baroda to Ahmedabad circle against his wish or it was the request of the petitioner, which was taken into consideration to transfer him from Baroda to Ahmedabad circle.
Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that if the order by which the petitioner was posted at Kalol dated 2.9.1976 is seen, it is clear that the transfer of the petitioner was for administrative reasons. Therefore, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner on such transfer can not be asked to loose his seniority. To appreciate this contention following further facts need to be recorded.
The petitioner had made an application on 2.12.1974 that he be transferred to Kalol, which falls under Ahmedabad circle. The Settlement Commissioner and Director of the Land Records, Gujarat State, who is the head of the department, approved the proposal of request transfer of the petitioner on 17.1.1975. After approval by the competent authority, two circle heads inter-se were to decide about the availability of post, on which the petitioner could have been accommodated. This took some time some. Some correspondence was also exchanged between Ahmedabad circle to Baroda circle. There was no vacancy at the relevant time in Ahmedabad circle on which the petitioner could have been accommodated. Subsequently, on 11.6.1975, the head of the department again ordered that as soon as it is administratively possible, the request of the petitioner be entertained. In due course transfer order came to be passed. By the order dated 2.9.1976, the petitioner was transferred from Baroda circle to Ahmedabad circle, in effect on the basis of the approval of the head of the department. By filing appropriate affidavit, specific stand is taken by the authorities that it was the mistake not to reflect the request of the petitioner in the said order and therefore, the said transfer order proceeds to read that for administrative convenience, the petitioner was posted at Kalol.
5. I find that there is ample material on record to conclude that it was the request of the petitioner which was instrument in getting him transferred from Baroda circle to Ahmedabad circle. Further he came to be posted at his native place at Kalol (District-Mehsana) in Ahmedabad circle and not some other place. In this factual background I accept the stand of the respondent-authorities that the transfer of the petitioner from Baroda circle to Ahmedabad circle was at his request. Thus the bone contention of the petitioner that the posting of the petitioner from Baroda to Kalol (Ahmedabad circle) was not at his request but it was because for the administrative convenience, is rejected.
6. In the light of the above, I find that the petitioner was entitled to seniority in Ahemdabad circle from the year 1976 only and there is no dispute that if the year 1976 is taken as the base of seniority, in that event the petitioner was not entitled to claim promotion on the post of senior clerk from the year 1986, which is claimed in this petition.
7. For the reasons recorded above, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled to relief which is claimed. The petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) Salim/ Page 5 of 5