Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1611/1997 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1611 of 1997
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=============================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=============================================================
MUSTAKAHAMED
R MANDLI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
VIRAMGAM
NAGAR PALIKA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JS BRAHMBHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR CB DASTOOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 07/05/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for
directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner on regular and
permanent basis or in the alternative, quashing and setting aside
the dismissal of the petitioner as Rojamdar by the respondent.
It
is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner started working as
Rojamdar Octroi Clerk with the respondent since June, 1991. The
respondent invited applications for the post of Class-III and IV
employees and selection committee has decided to appoint three
strangers as Junior Octroi Clerk in the month of September, 1996.
Thereafter, on 04th November 1996, the petitioner was
terminated from his service. On 02nd December 1996, the
petitioner submitted an application stating therein that junior to
him is allowed to continue in service and therefore, he may be
allowed to continue in service according to his seniority. Hence,
present petition.
It
is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is qualified for
the said post on regular and permanent basis as well as he has six
years’ experience, however, his case has not been considered. It is
further submitted that though the respondent-authority had filed an
undertaking before this Court in one another petition to regularize
services of the petitioner on permanent basis as and when there is
vacancy, the same has not been complied with. It is further
submitted that the rojamdars who are junior to the petitioner are
continued in service and the service of the petitioner has been
terminated. Thus, the principal of ‘last come, first go’ has not
been followed by the respondent. Hence, the present petition may be
allowed with all the reliefs prayed for therein.
Mrs.Krina
Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has relied upon the
affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent, and has
submitted that the appointments have been made as per the
advertisement were cancelled by the respondent as per the order of
the Collector. However, in view of the order passed by this Court in
another petition, they have been continued in service. Hence, the
present petition is required to be dismissed.
Having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, contentions
raised by learned advocates for the respective parties and documents
on record, it transpires that the petitioner was serving as an
Octroi Clerk on daily wages. The function of Octroi collection was
entrusted to the Contractor. Thus, the staff appointed in the Octroi
Department has become surplus. The petitioner’s service is,
therefore, terminated, which has become effective since November,
1996. Further, as stated by the learned advocate for the respondent,
the other employees have been continued in service in view of the
decision of this Court (Coram : M.R. Shah, J) rendered on 23rd
February 2007 in Special Civil Application No.3561 of 1997.
Further, since the said department is closed, there is no work of
Rojamdar. Hence, there is no question of reinstating the petitioner
in service. Further, this Court vide order dated 17th
September 1997 has refused the interim relief. Thus, the action of
the respondent-authority in terminating the service of the
petitioner is just and proper. I do not find any merits in the
present petition and the same is required to be dismissed.
In
view of aforesaid, the present petition fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim
relief, if any, stands hereby vacated.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top