Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6009/1994 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6009 of 1994
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 ?
=============================================================
CHANDRAKANT
JINARAM BAVANIYA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AMRELI
VIBHAG KELAVANI MANDAL & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MB GANDHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS MAMTA R VYAS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2,
4,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 26/03/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for
quashing and setting aside the order dated 20th April
1993 passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal at Ahmedabad
(hereinafter referred
to as ‘the Tribunal’) and directing the respondent-School
Management to appoint the petitioner as Junior Clerk with effect
from 01st August 1988 and the difference of salary to
that effect as well as directing the respondents to treat the
petitioner as Senior Clerk with effect from 20th April
1993 and to give him salary on that basis and further directing the
respondents to treat the petitioner senior to respondent No.4
herein.
It
is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined the
respondent-School with effect from 22nd August 1980 as a
peon. The petitioner passed S.S.C. Examination with Mathematics in
the year 1988 and at present he is holding qualification of Bachelor
of Arts (B.A.). It is submitted that there is also a vacancy of
Junior Clerk in the respondent-School. Thus, when the petitioner is
holding adequate qualification to be appointed as a Junior Clerk, he
is required to be appointed as a Junior Clerk in pursuance of the
provision of Section 55 of the Grant-In-Aid Code. The advertisement
was published by the respondent-School on 10th December
1989 for recruitment of Senior Clerk. On 18th December
1989, the petitioner made an application to the respondent-School.
However, in January, 1992, the respondent No.4 came to be appointed
as Senior Clerk. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application
before the Tribunal and the Award dated 19th April 1993
came to be passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was
appointed as Junior Clerk on 20th April 1993. However,
the respondent No.4 was appointed as Senior Clerk in the
respondent-School. Hence, the present petition.
Having
considered the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the
petitioner, documents produced on record as well as the averments
made in the petition, it transpires that the petitioner is a
graduate and as per the Rules, he is entitled to be promoted as a
Junior Clerk. The Tribunal has rightly observed that when the Rules
provide that the petitioner has to be made a Junior Clerk, he should
be made a Junior Clerk and if his work is found unsatisfactory or he
is negligent in his duties, it is open to the respondent-School
Management to take appropriate action against him in accordance with
law, but it cannot penalise an employee by denying him his right to
promotion. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal after
considering the pros and cons of the matter has come to a conclusion
that the petitioner is required to be appointed as a Junior Clerk.
Further, the Tribunal has also considered all the contentions raised
by the respondent-School Management and has passed the Award. Thus,
the Tribunal has passed the Award by assigning cogent and convincing
reasons. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the
Award passed by the Tribunal. I am in complete agreement with the
reasons assigned by the Tribunal. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that the impugned Award is just and proper. The present petition is
devoid of any substance and merit and the same is required to be
dismissed.
In
view of aforesaid observations and discussion, the present petition
fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged with no
order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top