IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11048 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9619 of 2013 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11048 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI ================================================================ 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 ? ================================================================ BHARATKUMAR PRAVINDAS MOD....Petitioner Versus GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPN. LTD.....Respondent ================================================================ Appearance: MR TR MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner. MS LILU K BHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent. RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI p. 2 Date : 24/09/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT The   petitioner,   a   Fire   Supervisor   working with respondent–Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,   having   been   denied   promotion   to   the   post   of Station Officer on account of an adverse remarks in his annual confidential report (for short ACR) for the year 2003, is before this Court seeking a a mandamus to   consider   his   case   for   such   promotion.     The petitioner   also   calls   in   question   the   non­ consideration   of   his   case   in   pursuance   to   the advertisement dated 03/07/1999. 2. The petitioner came to be appointed as Fire Supervisor with the respondent on 07/12/1995. He had passed course of the post of Sub Officer from National Service College, Nagpur in the year 1991. 2.1 On 26/08/2008, he applied for appointment to the   post   of   Station   Officer   alongwith   other candidates. While they were called for interview, the petitioner was not. 2.2. It   is   his   case   that   on   03/07/1999   also advertisement for filling up for the post of Station Officer was issued. The requisite qualifications were the   passing   of   Fire   Officer   post   course   with   an experience   of   five   years   as   Sub   Officer   or   in   the alternative   the   passing   of   National   Fire   Service Course   or   equivalent   course   from   any   government p. 3 recognized   institute. He   unsuccessfully   made applications   and   representation   for   prosecuting further studies to qualify for the post of Station Officer. The last representation dated 16/10/2006 in that regard has remained un­headed as such. 2.3 According   to   the   petitioner,   many   persons junior to him have been issued call letters and none of the 12 candidates called for an interview possessed a degree of Station Officer from Nagpur National Fire Service post. He apprehends the filling up the Station Officer's   post   without   insisting   for   requisite qualifications   by   respondent. The   petitioner's apprehension is based upon the appointments of Fire Supervisor   without   requisite   qualifications   in   the year   1994   by   respondent. In   the   said   recruitment process, the Fire Supervisor were given an opportunity to acquire  requisite qualifications within 04 years from the date of their appointment. The petitioner relies upon the cases of Mr.K M Parmar and Mr.S S Mudaliya,   and   contends   that   though   they   have   not passed   Sub   Officer   course   from   Nagpur   Fire   Service College within prescribed period, still they have been called for interview. 2.4 According   to   the   petitioner,   he   is   better placed than the other ineligible candidates, having passed the examination of Supervisor post conducted by National Fire Service College, Nagpur as against the unqualified candidates who have been given a chance to the post of Station Officer (Fire). According to him, p. 4 in the year 1999, when the advertisement was issued, the   post   in   question   was   reserved   only   for   OBC candidates, which was not filled up owing to the lack of requisite qualifications. It is his case that since 1999, the post of Station Officer from OBC candidate has not been filled up. 2.5 To substantiate his case, various documents have been placed on record of the petition. 3. Respondent   has   filed   affidavit­in­reply opposing   the   petition,   according   to   which,   the petitioner was not called for interview for want of requisite qualifications. That 11 of 12 Supervisors called for interview had joined the services with the respondent before the petitioner joined. To reiterate that   the   candidates   called   for   possessed   requisite eligibility; certificate in case of one Mr.Parmar and Mr.Mudaliya   issued   by   Central   Industrial   Security Force of Government of India are placed on record. 3.1 It is contended that while considering the ACRs for last five years of the candidates including the   petitioner,   adverse   remarks   as   to   his   doubtful integrity, poor punctuality and indifferent relations with   colleagues   and   staff   for   the   year   2003   were noticed and thus he was not called for the interview. 4. To   reiterate   that,   even   juniors   to   the petitioner   were   given   chance,   the   petitioner   in rejoinder has cited the case of Mr.R K Kumpavat who p. 5 according   to   him   did   not   even   complete   one   year service   as   Fire   Supervisor. It   is   contended   that certificates in respect of Mr.Parmar and Mr.Mudaliya relied   upon   by   the   respondent   to   reiterate   their possession of requisite qualifications are contrary to the   circular   and   regulations   of   the   respondent. According to the petitioner, none of the incumbents called   for   interview   possessed   certificate   of   Fire Supervisor Course from National Fire Service College, Nagpur,   which   is   the   only   college   issuing   such certificates in the country. 4.1 It is the petitioner's case that in absence of provision authorizing the  respondent to consider the   confidential   report   for   the   entire   service rendered   by   the   incumbent,   it   could   not   have   gone beyond three years for such consideration in view of clause–IV of standing order No.334. The said standing order provides for consideration of 9, 10 and 11 years confidential report / working report as the case may be of which at least three years should be clean for the purpose of acquiring higher grade on completion of 09, 10 and 11 years of service by class­III grade or by   an   incumbent   aspiring   for   higher   grade   within class­IV.  It is thus contended that ACRs only of the year 2005­06, 2006­07 and 2007­08 were required to be considered   and   that   during   the   said   years,   the petitioner's   record   being   clean,   is   eligible   to   be considered for the post of Station Officer. 5. Respondent   has   also   filed   affidavit   dated p. 6 23/12/2008 and further affidavit dated 09/07/2014 and the rejoinder to further affidavit­in­reply has been filed by the petitioner. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, the main   grievance   of   the   petitioner   appears   to   be consideration of ineligible candidates by respondent for the post of Station Officer and the consideration of   five   years   ACRs   for   denying   the   petitioner   an opportunity   of   promotion   to   the   post   of   Station Officer. 7. It   appears   that   applications   from   the departmental   candidates   were   also   called   for.     It appears   that   for   the   purpose   of   short   listing   the candidates, one of the consideration which is being consistently followed by the respondent is examination of last five years' ACRs.  It is, however, true that the aforesaid practice is being consistently followed in absence of the rules or standing orders, as stated by the respondent in its affidavit. 8. In compliance of the oral direction, learned Counsel for the respondent has substantiated the said practice by placing on record a copy of the office note   dated   19/10/2013   requiring   the   departmental candidates even in past to come clean for the last five years in the confidential reports. It is thus misconceived to rely upon standing order No.334 afore­ stated for the simple reason that it is applicable only in case of class­III and the persons aspiring for p. 7 a   higher   grade   within   class­IV.     The   post   of   Fire Supervisor is above class­III. 9. Having   regard   to   the   documents   placed   on record, it cannot be disputed that there were adverse remarks in the petitioner's ACRs for the year 2003 and therefore the respondent is well within its right to deprive the departmental candidates to promotion on the   strength   of   the   adverse   remarks   in   ACRs.     In absence   of   the   rules,   it   is   for   the   employer   to prescribe   requisite   procedure   and   in   absence   of demonstrable vulnerability in the practice so adopted, it cannot be regarded as illegal or unconstitutional practice. 10. Under the above circumstances, on the mere contention of the petitioner being on better footing than   other   departmental   candidates,   the   petitioner himself being ineligible, no right for consideration of the promotion can be said to have been acquired by the petitioner. 11. In   above   view   of   the   matter,   non­ consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Station Officer by respondent is based upon the reasonable policy and therefore this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not issue a writ in absence of the duty cast upon the respondent for considering the case of the petitioner in the face of adverse remarks in his ACRs. p. 8 12. The   petition   therefore   fails   and   is dismissed   with   no   order   as   to   costs.     Rule   is discharged.  Interim­relief, if any, stands vacated. 13. In view of dismissal of main petition, Civil Application   does   not   survive   and   is   accordingly disposed of. (G.R.UDHWANI, J.) sompura