Holding

The court held that the respondents were entitled to be considered for promotion after completing five years of service, and the State’s failure to do so was unlawful, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the deemed promotion.

Summary

The respondents, appointed as Class‑III Medical Officers in 1978‑80, became eligible for promotion to Class‑II after five years of service under the Gujarat Medical Service Class‑II Recruitment Rules, 1977. Despite meeting this eligibility, the State recruited 400 allopathic doctors between 1983‑93 and did not consider the respondents for promotion. The respondents filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the State’s omission was illegal and a deemed date of promotion with consequential benefits. The Single Judge granted the relief, holding that while promotion is not a statutory right, the right to be considered for promotion is enforceable. On appeal, the Division Bench affirmed that the respondents were entitled to be considered for promotion, that their Ayurvedic qualifications satisfied the eligibility criteria under the Gujarat Medical Practitioners Act, and dismissed the State’s appeal, confirming the deemed promotion for purposes of pay, seniority and pension.

Issues considered

The respondents' right to be considered for promotion upon satisfying the five‑year service requirement.
Whether the State’s direct recruitment of allopathic doctors violated the respondents' legal right to consideration for promotion.
Whether Ayurvedic qualifications satisfy the eligibility criteria for Class‑II Medical Officer posts.
Whether the court may grant a deemed date of promotion and related benefits.
Whether arrears of pay are payable to the respondents.

Legislation cited

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956

Subjects

promotionlegitimate expectationpublic service lawmedical officerClass‑IIIClass‑IIdeemed promotionGujaratAyurvedic qualificationservice rules

Judgment

C/LPA/20/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

Reserved On : 04/05/2026
Pronounced On : 08/05/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 20 of 2017
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/12052/2000
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
R P CHATURVEDI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VAISHNAVI VERMA, AGP for the Appellant
MR AK CLERK for the Respondents
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1. The Respondents Nos.1 to 4 herein were appointed
in 1978 while the Respondent No 5 was appointed in
1980, as Medical Officers (Class-III) by the Gujarat
Panchayat Services Selection Board.

2. It was their case that their only promotional post
had been clearly indicated in the Gujarat Medical Service
Class II Recruitment Rules 1977 at the time of their
recruitment as Class-III Medical Officers and that they
would be entitled to be promoted to these Class-II posts
on rendering meritorious service of 10 years, which was,
in fact, reduced to 5 years.

Page 1 of 10
C/LPA/20/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

3. It was their case that despite their completion of 5
years as required under the Rules, their cases were not
considered for promotion and on the other hand, the
State, taking advantage of the fact that no ratio was
prescribed between direct recruits and for promotion for
these Class II posts of Medical Officers, proceeded to
recruit 400 Allopathic doctors during the period from
1983 to 1993 and thereby deprived them of promotions.

4. The respondents approached the Gujarat Services
Tribunal with the grievance that their case for promotion
was required to be considered on completion of 5 years of
service. However, the Tribunal rejected their appeal on
the ground that it did not possess the jurisdiction. The
Tribunal, however, observed that the department should
look into the grievance of the respondents.

5. The respondents, thereafter, submitted a
representation to the Government, which was to no avail.

6. Consequently, the respondents approached this
Court by filing the writ petition seeking for a declaration
that the omission of the State to promote them on
completion of 5 years of service was illegal and for
issuance of a direction to the State to give them a deemed
date of promotion and grant all consequential benefits.

7. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the
matter, has granted the aforementioned prayers sought

Page 2 of 10
C/LPA/20/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

for by the original petitioners on the reasoning that
though the respondents had no right for a promotion, in
law, they had a right to be considered for promotion on
them becoming eligible. The learned Single Judge took
notice of the fact that 400 persons were recruited directly
during the period from 1983 to 1993, thereby indicating
that there were clear vacancies in the promotional posts
of Medical Officer (Class-II) and therefore, the State
Government had to consider them to the said promotional
posts and ought to have promoted them on their
completion of 5 years. The learned Single Judge also
directed the extension of the said benefits with all
consequential benefits to the respondents herein.

8. Being aggrieved by this order, the State is in the
appeal.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.
Vaishnavi Verma appearing on behalf of the Appellant-
State contended that the learned Single Judge could not
have granted the deemed date of promotion since it was
nobody’s case that any person junior to the respondents
had been promoted. She contended that it was the
discretion of the State Government to grant promotions
and no employee could seek for promotion, as a matter of
right. She submitted that the view of the learned Single
Judge that promotion should be granted since there were
clear vacancies cannot also be accepted in the light of the

Page 3 of 10
C/LPA/20/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

aforementioned legal principle.

10. She also submitted that the respondents were, in
fact, promoted in 1994 and they could not therefore be
aggrieved on the ground that there was no promotional
avenue for them at all. She also sought to put forth an
argument that it was just not a question of 5 years'
experience, but there was also a requirement of the
petitioners possessing a MBBS degree in order to be a
Medical Officer Class II officer. It is argued that since the
respondents were only Ayurvedic doctors, they did not
possess the requisite medical educational qualifications
for being promoted as Class II officers.

11. Learned AGP has filed the written submissions and
also placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court
rendered in Civil Appeal No.6977 of 2015.

12. Learned counsel Mr. A.K. Clerk, appearing for the
respondents contended that the order of the learned
Single Judge could not be found fault with and it was
absolutely justified. He submitted that given the fact that
there were clear vacancies and despite the respondents
possessing all the requisite qualifications, they were not
even considered, the Learned Single Judge was justified
in granting the respondents a deemed promotion from the
date that they had completed 5 years of service as Class
III officers.

Page 4 of 10
C/LPA/20/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

13. He submitted that a candidate on being recruited
possesses a legitimate expectation that his case for
promotion would be considered in accordance with the
Recruitment Rules. Merely because a candidate does not
possess a statutory right of promotion, that does not
mean that the State can keep the candidates endlessly
waiting for a promotion. He, therefore, sought for
dismissal of the appeal.

14. The fact that the respondents were recruited as
Medical Officer (Class-III) in the year 1978 and 1980 is
admitted. It is also admitted that the promotional post for
a Class-III Medical Officer is only as a Class-II Medical
Officer. It is also not in dispute that in order to be eligible
for promotion, a Class-III Medical Officer should have
rendered 5 years of service. Thus, it is clear that the
eligibility of the respondents, for being considered for
promotion as Class II officers, was the completion of 5
years as a Class III officer, which the respondents
attained in 1983 in case of respondents Nos.1 to 4 and in
1985 in case of respondent No.5.

15. The right to a promotion is not guaranteed, but in
the light of various pronouncements of the Supreme
Court, the right to be considered for a promotion, is a
legal right which can be enforced by approaching a court
of law. This is on the simple principle that it is the

Page 5 of 10
C/LPA/20/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

common expectation of every employee to elevate himself
to a higher grade in his career by dint of his hard work
and his experience. sThis legitimate expectation is
manifested in the rules which provide for promotion and
thereby a right is conferred for an employee to be
considered for promotion to a higher post. In fact, in the
very judgment produced by the learned AGP, this
principle has been elucidated by the Supreme Court.

16. In the instant case, the respondents, as observed
earlier, became eligible to be promoted to the only
promotional post of a Class-II Medical Officer on the
completion of 5 years of service as a Class-III Medical
Officer. It is no-doubt true that the respondents do not
have a statutory right to be promoted immediately on
completion of 5 years of service since promotion to a
particular post is dependent on various factors, such as
availability of vacancies and also the need of the
employer to fill up the promotional posts.

17. In the present case, the fact that the State
proceeded to recruit nearly 400 Allopathic doctors
between the period from 1983 to 1993, by itself, is clear
proof of the fact that there were not only a clear but a
large number of vacancies in the promotional post of
Class-II Medical Officers. If there were clear vacancies,
the State was obliged to consider the case of those
candidates who were eligible for being considered for

Page 6 of 10
C/LPA/20/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

promotion. The State cannot obviously disregard the right
of the eligible candidates to be considered for promotion
by proceeding to only recruit the candidates through the
mode of direct recruitment. This approach, basically,
amounts to the denial of the eligible candidates to be
considered for promotion, which would be legally
untenable.

18. The learned Single Judge has merely taken note of
the fact that there were clear vacancies available in the
promotional post and, the original petitioners on
completion of 5 years were required to be considered and
this right was impliedly denied by the State by resorting
to direct recruitment, he has merely directed that they be
considered as deemed to have been promoted on the date
of completion of 5 years.

19. It is no doubt true that a deemed date of promotion
is granted, normally, in cases, where juniors are
promoted and that anomaly is rectified by granting a
retrospective promotion to a person who was otherwise
entitled to promotion. In the instant case, since the
petitioners (respondents 1 to 5 herein), were indeed
entitled to be considered for promotion on the completion
of 5 years, and that was denied to them and an attempt
was made to bypass their promotions completely, the
learned Single Judge has merely directed that they should
be deemed to be promoted on completion of 5 years.

Page 7 of 10
C/LPA/20/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

20. It is to be stated here that the learned Single Judge,
though granted the respondents a deemed date of
promotion from the date on which the respondents
completed 5 years of service as Class-III Medical Officers,
has clarified that the deemed date of promotion would be
considered only for the purpose of pay fixation, seniority,
and pension and the respondents would also not be
entitled to get the arrears for the said period. This would,
therefore, indicate that there is no financial harm caused
to the State also. In the light of the relief granted by the
learned Single Judge, the argument that there was a
delay in approaching the Court and because of which, the
petitioner has to fail, cannot be accepted.

21. As far as the argument that the petitioners were not
eligible for being promoted as they were not possession a
MBBS degree, though this argument was not urged
before the Learned Single Judge, it is to be stated here
that the eligibility criteria prescribed for a Class II
Medical Officer are as follows:

“2. Appointment to the post of Medical Officer in Gujarat
Medical Services Class -II shall made either:

(a) By promotion of a Medical Officer's Class III who possess.

(i) the M.B.B.S. Degree of a University recognized by
the Government of Gujarat or any other qualification
specified the first or second schedule to the Indian
Medical Council Act 1956 ог

Page 8 of 10
C/LPA/20/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

(ii) registerable qualification under schedule III of the
Indian Medical Council Act 1965 or

(iii) Qualifications as specified in part C and D of the
schedule of Gujarat Medical practitioners Act 1963
and has rendered meritorious services of ten years as
Medical Officer either in Gujarat Medical Services
Class III or under panchayatas.”

22. As could be seen from the above, there are three
kinds of eligibility criteria prescribed and the possession
of a MBBS degree is only one of the criteria. The Rule
also stipulates that the possession of qualifications as
prescribed under Part C or Part D of the Schedule to the
Gujarat Medical Practitioners Act would also be entitled
to be Class II Medical Officers.

23. Section 17 of the Act prescribes the persons who are
qualified to be registered as medical practitioners and it
stipulates that persons with the qualifications prescribed
in the schedule can be registered.

24. Part C of the Schedule to this Act clearly state that
even a person who possesses qualifications in the
Ayurvedic with a course supplemented by Modern
advances with an Inter service examination or with a
Matriculation or SSC examination would be eligible to be
Class II Medical Officers. Similarly, Part D of the
Schedule states that persons who possess qualifications
in the Ayurvedic System of Medicine with course
supplemented by modern advance with matriculation of

Page 9 of 10
C/LPA/20/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

SSC would be eligible for registration.

25. Admittedly, it is because the respondents possessed
these qualifications in Ayurvedic medicine, they had been
registered as a Medical practitioner under the Act and
they were therefore recruited as Class III Medical
Officers. This would therefore indicate that the
respondents did possess the requisite educational
qualifications for being Class II Medical Officers. The
argument of the learned AGP that the respondents did not
possess the requisite educational qualification is
therefore without any merit.

26. In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED. Interim
relief, if any, stands vacated.

27. It is needless to state that the respondents would be
entitled for the arrears from the date they approached
this Court by filing the Special Civil Application as their
Special Civil Applications were allowed and due to the
pendency of these appeals they were not paid their
entitlement as ordered by the Learned Single Judge.

Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)

Sd/-
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
OMKAR
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: OMKAR CHHAGANLAL MAHAWAR(HC00201), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/05/2026 18:15:21

Page 10 of 10