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.
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
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
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
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
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
