The Gujarat High Court answered in the affirmative, reaffirming that Government Resolutions dated 02.04.1983, 30.10.1993, and 14.06.2016 mandate fair consideration of ad-hoc promotions and directing State authorities to decide fresh representations within eight weeks; this order serves as binding authority on Government departments in Gujarat.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SCA/4305/2025 of Suresh Manilal Parmar vs State of Gujarat |
| CNR | GJHC240212452025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Partly allowed |
| Judgment Author | Honourable Mr. Justice Nikhil S. Kariel |
| Court | High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Questions of Law | Whether State authorities must consider ad-hoc promotions for employees against whom departmental inquiry or criminal prosecution is pending in terms of Government Resolutions dated 02.04.1983, 30.10.1993, and 14.06.2016? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that Government Resolutions dated 02.04.1983, 30.10.1993, and 14.06.2016 require fair consideration of ad-hoc promotions even if disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending, by applying the three prescribed conditions. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh representation within one week, and the competent authority was directed to decide it within eight weeks strictly following the policy criteria. In case of rejection, a speaking order must be passed. The Court refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the pending inquiry or prosecution, limiting its intervention to ensuring procedural compliance. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner submitted representations dated 04.03.2024 and 05.09.2024 seeking ad-hoc promotion under Government Resolutions dated 02.04.1983, 30.10.1993, and 14.06.2016, despite facing departmental inquiry and criminal prosecution; the State had not decided those representations. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | State of Gujarat authorities responsible for ad-hoc promotions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court directed the filing of a fresh representation within one week and mandated decision within eight weeks under the specified Government Resolutions.
- Authorities must apply the three conditions prescribed in the Government Resolutions of 02.04.1983, 30.10.1993, and 14.06.2016 when considering ad-hoc promotions for employees under inquiry.
- A speaking order is required if a representation is rejected, ensuring transparency and accountability.
- The Court limited its role to enforcing procedural compliance without adjudicating the merits of ongoing disciplinary or criminal proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Government Resolutions dated 02.04.1983, 30.10.1993, and 14.06.2016 mandate that employees under departmental inquiry or criminal prosecution be considered for ad-hoc promotion by applying three prescribed conditions.
- The petitioner’s existing representations (dated 04.03.2024 and 05.09.2024) had not been decided; the Court granted liberty to file a fresh representation to streamline the process.
- The competent authority was directed to decide the fresh representation within eight weeks, strictly adhering to the policy criteria.
- In the event of rejection, the authority must issue a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner.
- The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the pending inquiry or prosecution, focusing solely on ensuring fair administrative procedure.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a State employee of Gujarat, sought ad-hoc promotion under Government Resolutions dated 02.04.1983, 30.10.1993, and 14.06.2016 despite being subject to departmental inquiry and criminal prosecution. He submitted representations on 04.03.2024 and 05.09.2024, which remained undecided by the respondent authorities. Via Special Civil Application No. 4305 of 2025, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for fair consideration of his promotion claim. The State did not record any decision on these representations prior to the petition. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing procedural steps to ensure compliance with the administrative policy.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment analyses Government Resolution dated 02.04.1983, which prescribes three conditions for in-camera consideration of ad-hoc promotions for employees against whom disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending. It further relies on the reiteration of this policy in Government Resolutions dated 30.10.1993 and 14.06.2016, mandating that competent authorities uniformly apply these criteria and issue reasoned orders on the acceptance or rejection of representations.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Government policy on ad-hoc promotions reaffirmed.