Gujarat High Court
Ranjeet Mansukhlal Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/4181/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4181 of 2019
==========================================================
RANJEET MANSUKHLAL CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRITHU PARIMAL(9025) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KURVEN DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 22/08/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The prayers in the petition read as under:
"B. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of
mandamus and/or any other appropriate
writ/order/direction, directing the Respondents
herein to include the Petitioner in Batch 2011
of PSI's instead of present Batch of 2012.
C. This Hon'ble Court further be pleased to
issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the
nature of mandamus and/or any other
appropriate writ/order/direction, directing the
Respondents herein to grant inter-se seniority
to the Petitioner solely on the basis of the
marks obtained by him in the examination
conducted at the end of the training period."
C/SCA/4181/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2022
2. Apparently for the same prayers, in Special Civil
Application No. 2496 of 2019, on similar set of facts, this
court has held as under:
"7) I have heard the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties.
8) The facts as narrated hereinabove are not in
dispute. The undisputed facts suggest that the
respondent authorities have without any
application of mind, to the acquittal of the
petitioner, has denied his appointment letter by
construing the same that if the petitioner was
facing criminal prosecution when the
appointment letters of other batch mates were
issued on 31.01.2011. It is also not in dispute
that the petitioner was acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sections 324,188
and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
by the judgment and order dated 29.09.2010
passed in Criminal Case No. 689 of 2009 by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate at Rajkot. It is
pertinent to note that despite that the
petitioner has provided such details in his
Police verification, he was not issued any
appointment orders. It is equally surprising that
the petitioner was constrained to file a writ
petition being Special Civil Application No.
16603 of 2010. Only after the Court had passed
the order dated 28.12.2010, the respondents
has issued the appointment order to the
petitioner.
C/SCA/4181/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2022
9) The aforesaid facts suggest that the
petitioner was not issued the appointment
order on misconceived notion with regard to
the criminal proceedings. Since he was
belatedly issued the appointment order, as a
consequence thereof, he was sent also sent to
the training after his batch mates, which
resulted into loss of seniority. The seniority of
the petitioner ha been fixed in the year 2018
considering his completion of training, and he
has challenged such fixation in the writ petition
immediately. Because of his loss of seniority, he
is also not promoted, whereas his juniors are
promoted. Thus, the contention raised by the
learned AGP with regard to delay in filing the
writ petition does not merit acceptance.
10) The Reliance placed on rules 114 of the
Gujarat Police Manual read with Rule 61(10)
will not rescue the respondent authorities since
it is on the lapse of the respondent authorities
that the petitioner was not issued the
appointment orders and he was sent to training
belatedly. If the respondent authorities had
applied its mind to the acquittal of the
petitioner in criminal proceedings at the time of
fixation of seniority or when he was sent to
training, he could have been sent along with
other batch mates. The seniority of the
petitioner is accordingly fixed in the year 2018
as per the Provisions of Rule 114 of the Gujarat
Police Manual, on completion of training. Such
seniority has been fixed only the year 2018 and
the petitioner was shown below his batch mates
C/SCA/4181/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2022
though they had obtained less marks in the
training examination. Such action of the
respondents has further remitted in loss of
promotion to the petitioner.
11) Thus, the present writ petition succeeds.
The respondents are directed to confer the
seniority of the petitioner by including him in
the batch of 2010 of PSI instead of batch 2012,
as per marks obtained in the training.
12) Appropriate orders refixing his seniority
shall be passed within the period of three
months from the date of receipt of the order of
this Court. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent."
3. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to confer seniority of the
petitioner by including him in the batch of 2011 of PSI
instead of batch 2012, as per marks obtained in the
training. Appropriate orders refixing his seniority shall
be passed within the period of three months from the
date of receipt of the order of this Court. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
DIVYA
