AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anant S. Dave, J.—Civil Application No. 6377 of 2011 is filed for fixing the date of final hearing of writ petitions namely S.C.A. Nos. 29910 of 2007 to 29913 of 2007.
The above request is accepted and Civil application is allowed. Learned Advocate for the applicants is directed to address this Court on merits of the main writ petitions.
Upon hearing learned advocate for the Petitioners, who basically relies on the order dated 20th April 2005 passed in S.C.A. No. 1736 of 2005 by which it was jointly stated that the Respondents namely S.T. Corporation and subordinate Authorities had fixed the date for holding departmental examination for the post of Traffic Controller and the same would be held shortly. The grievance of all the Petitioners in these petitions is about non-compliance with the direction given in the above order by learned Judge of this Court and it is submitted that in spite of the statement jointly made by learned advocate for the Petitioners as well as the learned advocate for the Respondents No. other examination is held. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in 2003 (0) GLHEL 2105 30 and para 12 A,B and C of the said decision and it is submitted that the Respondent-S.T. Corporation is duty bound to hold departmental examination at a reasonable interval so that eligible candidates claiming promotion to the higher posts can appear in such examination and such policy would be inconsonance with the interest of the S.T. Corporation and will improve the efficiency of the employees.
Learned advocate for the Respondent-Corporation has relied on the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the competent Officer of the S.T. Corporation and it is submitted that the Petitioners had earlier appeared in the departmental examination in the year 2002 for the post of Traffic Controller and could not succeed. The above facts were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge when the order dated 20th April 2005 in S.C.A. No. 1736 of 2005 was passed. It is further submitted that however, pursuant to the direction issued in the above order dated 20th April 2005, the examination was to be held but in view of cancellation of General Standing Order 11001 of 2001 and 1135 of 2005, the Corporation could not undertake exercise of holding examination. It is further submitted that out of 59 sanctioned post of Traffic Controller in Rajkot division there are 65 Traffic Controllers already working and in the above circumstances, out of earlier examination conducted, 195 candidates were found successful till December, 2007 and 105 candidates were given promotion. In the above circumstances, when the Corporation is not in a need of Traffic Controller till the end of 2010 holding of departmental examination as contended would not arise and therefore, the petitions deserves to be dismissed.
On perusal of record of writ petitions, submissions made by learned advocates for the parties and Reply, Rejoinder filed therein, I am of the opinion that in view of the administrative exigency explained by the competent Authority of the Corporation in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of Affidavit-in-Reply and particularly when the Petitioners who appeared in the departmental examination in the year 2002 could not succeed and thereafter number of successful candidates pursuant to the earlier examination of 2002 were in turn given promotion and posts were filled in, a valid and reasonable justification for not holding departmental examination by Respondents has appeared on record of this case.
Reliance placed on the decision of the learned single Judge in the Case of Ravindrakumar Kanthilal Modi v. Managing Director (supra) is misconceived. In the above case learned Single Judge in view of the inordinate delay on the part of the S.T. Corporation and promotion from the cadre of conductor to the cadre of Traffic Controller had taken more than 12 years, issued certain directions which may not be applicable in the facts of this case.
In view of the above and reasonable explanation given by Respondents for not holding departmental examination as considered in para-5 of this order, No. case is made out to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the Petitioners.
Accordingly, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.