Gujarat High Court
Popatlal Rtanlal Dhundhia vs State Of Gujarat on 1 July, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2709/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2709 of
2025
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.8609 of 2025
(R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 775 of 2025)
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 775 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16164 of 2011
==========================================================
POPATLAL RTANLAL DHUNDHIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION:-
The delay of 27 days caused in filing the main Letters Patent Appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The Delay Condonation Application is hereby allowed.
The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The Office shall allot regular number to the appeal.Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:42:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2709/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissing the writ petition filed in the year 2011 with the following reliefs:-
"A) Quashing and setting aside the letter dt. 19.9.2003 and letter dt. 9.8.2011 and directing the respondents to give deemed date of promotion to the petitioner to the post of Head Constable with effect from 1.4.89, the date from which his junior Respondent no. 4 was promoted, with consequential benefits at 8% interest.
B) During the pendency and final disposal of the petition, the Respondent No. 2 may be directed to give deemed date of promotion to the post of Head Constable as 1.4.89.
C) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper."
2. In essence, the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition was to give a deemed date of promotion to the petitioner to the post of Head Constable with effect from 01.04.1989, the date from which his junior, the respondent no. 4 before the writ court, was promoted with all consequential benefits. As per the statement made in the writ petition, at the relevant point of time, i.e. at the time of institution of the writ petition, the petitioner was Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:42:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2709/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined serving as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in Ahmedabad (Rural) District and was on deputation to A.C.B., Shahibaug, Ahmedabad.
3. The stand of the petitioner in the writ petition was that he was appointed on 11.12.1979 as an unarmed Police Constable and was promoted as Head Constable on 29.05.1992, and a subsequent promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police was dated 05.10.2002, the post which he was holding on the date of presentation of the writ petition.
4. It is contended in the writ petition that the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 were appointed on the same date i.e. on 11.12.1979, as unarmed Police Constables and both of them belonged to the Scheduled Tribe Category. The respondent no. 4, however, was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 01.04.1989, whereas promotion of the petitioner was granted to the same post means Head Constable on 29.05.1992.
5. It is stated in the writ petition that at the time of promotion of the respondent no. 4 on 01.04.1989, the case Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:42:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2709/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined of the petitioner was not considered and therefore, the petitioner started making representations. By letter dated 31.03.1993, the petitioner requested the respondent no. 2 to consider his date of promotion as 01.04.1989, as deemed date of promotion since junior to him has been promoted without consideration of the case of the petitioner who belonged to Scheduled Tribe Category.
6. The further contention in the writ petition is that the petitioner continued to raise this demand and when the candidature of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 18.09.2002, even then the request was not accepted. The caste certificate produced by the petitioner was doubted and was later verified by the District Backward Welfare Officer, Ahmedabad by letter dated 28.01.2004/25.02.2004 informing the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajkot that the caste certificate dated 07.05.1979 of the petitioner was proper. A copy of the said communication is appended as Annexure I to the writ petition.
7. It seems that the request of the petitioner was considered by the respondent no. 2 - the Commissioner of Police and Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:42:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2709/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined the representations made by the petitioner were further rejected at the ends of the competent authority and a communication dated 09.08.2011 was sent to him, which has led to the filing of the writ petition in the year 2011.
8. The fact remains that in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2, before the writ court, a categorical stand has been taken that the petitioner did not produce the caste certificate at the relevant point of time and the case of the respondent no. 4 was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee after evaluation of the documents submitted by him, including the caste certificate of being Scheduled Tribe candidate. There is a categorical statement in the affidavit that even the promotion of the petitioner on 29.05.1992 to the post of the Head Constable was in the category of a general candidate and his further promotion to ASI is dated 19.09.2003.
9. The case of the petitioner was further placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee on 18.09.2002 for consideration of deemed date promotion with effect from 01.04.1989 for the post of Head Constable which was not Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:42:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2709/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined accepted looking to the fact that the caste certificate was submitted by him subsequently on 13.03.2003 and it was verified in the year 2004.
10. The categorical stand of the respondent, thus, is that the petitioner did not produce the caste certificate at the time of initial appointment and service record did not contain the caste certificate and, as such, the promotion in the year 1989 could not be granted in absence of the caste certificate which has not been disputed by the petitioner by filing any affdavit-in-reply as rejoinder. The assertion in the additional affidavit dated 22.02.2017 filed by the petitioner before the writ court is of no benefit to the petitioner.
11. With these facts reflected from the record, we do not find any error in the decision of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition for the findings returned in paragraph no. 7 onwards. No error of fact and law could be brought before us. The appeal stands dismissed, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) VARSHA DESAI Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:42:01 IST 2025