AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of this petition, the petitioner-Association has challenged the office order bearing No.25 of 2000, dated 28.3.2000, passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the present respondent No.4 was promoted on the post of Bailiff from the post of Binder and further prayed to direct the respondents to prepare a select list of promotees in confirmation to the order dated 19.12.1991 at Annexure-B and to promote the person of the list so prepared. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner is a registered Association of Class IV employees. The members of the petitioners Association are working on the post of Peon in the grade pay of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200/-. The High Court of Gujarat has revised the rules of guidelines as regards promotion to the post of Bailiffs from the cadre of peons under Rule 19 of the Recruitment Rules for Recruitment of class III and IV services in the Subordinate Judicial Services. As per the said Circular 75% of the post of Bailiffs shall ordinarily be filed in by promotion from amongst persons in the cadre of peons including Havaldars, Naiks, Watchmen and Jail Wardens having put in not less than 3 years services and possessing requisite educational qualification for being appointed on the post of Bailiff and is otherwise suitable for such post. It is further provided that the Selection committee shall prepare Select List for this purpose in the month of February of every year.
1.1. The respondent No.2 vide office order No. 25/2000 dated 28.03.2000, promoted the respondent No.4 to the post of Bailiff. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed by the petitioner.
Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the rules for promotion to the post of Bailiff merely states that 75% of the post of Bailiffs shall ordinarily be filed in by promotion from amongst persons in the cadre of peons including Havaldars, Naiks, Watchmen and Jail Wardens having put in not less than 3 years services and possessing requisite educational qualification fro being appointed on the post of Bailiff and is otherwise suitable for such post.
He further contended that post of Binder is not included in the list of feeder cadre for getting the promotion to the post of Bailiff. He further contended that in the select list Annexure-C, the name of respondent No.4 was not mentioned, and in spite of that he was granted promotion.
Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the posts are illustrative and not exhaustive. He further contended that the order of promotion passed by respondent No.2 is just and proper. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the present petition.
I have heard learned advocate for both the parties and perused the record. It appears that the posts of feeder cadre are illustrative and not exhaustive and the post of Binder falls under class-IV and the pay scale of Havaldar and Binder is equal. Apart from that the respondent No.4 is possessing requisite educational qualification and experience for getting promotion to the post of Bailiff. Therefore, considering these facts the respondent No.4 was promoted on the post of Bailiff, which is, in my opinion just and proper. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition being meritless stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.