Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3208/1990 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3208 of 1990
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3219 of 1990
=========================================================
K
S RANA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MR ANAND for Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 10/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. In
all these petitions, the petitioners challenge the legality and
validity of the reversion order from the post of Deputy Mamlatdar to
the post of clerks. These petitions are covered by the Division Bench
Judgement of this court rendered in the case of R.K. Prajapati &
Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 1992(2) G.L.R.
Vol.33(2), Page 1422.
2. There
is no dispute with regard to the fact that all the petitioners are
promoted to the posts of Deputy Mamlatdar on ad hoc basis. The
petitioners belong to scheduled Tribe and, therefore, they are
entitled to claim benefits of reservation. The petitioners are sought
to be reverted to the lower post in accordance with the general
seniority list of Deputy Mamlatdars. The contention of the
petitioners is that when they were promoted the number of posts
prescribed for reserved seats or quota was not fulfilled and
therefore, they cannot be reverted by applying the principles of
seniority. According to their submission even while effecting the
reversion, the roster should be taken into consideration. The
contention has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of R.K. Prajapati(supra). It may be noted that the impugned
order of reversion has not been placed on record in any of the
petitions. But it is an undisputed position that the order of
reversion is dated April 1, 1990, and on account of the interim order
passed by this Court the impugned order of reversion has not been
implemented.
3. In
the case of R.K. Prajapati (supra) this court gave certain
directions, the relevant part which reads as follows :
?SHowever,
before parting with this judgement, it must be held that the
concerned Collectors shall have first to decide whether SC/ST
category of employees who are not reverted and who are retained
in promotional posts fall within the permissible reservation
percentage or quota of promotional posts which survive after
reduction of posts or whether they exceed the quota and if they
exceed such percentage of quota then the excess number of SC/ST
employees who are junior most SC/ST employees will have to be
reverted along with general category promotees according to their
inter as seniority. Accordingly reversion may be effected of the
concerned employees whether belonging to general category or
SC/ST in the concerned Collectorate. If the impugned reversion
orders meet this test, then they can be implemented. If not, fresh
appropriate reversion order may be passed if required, keeping
in view the observations and directions contained in this
judgement.??
4. It
is also an undisputed position that the aforesaid direction given by
this court in the case of R.K. Prajapati(supra) would be applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondents No.1 &
2 have no objection if similar direction is given in all these
petitions of the petitioners and the petitions are disposed of
accordingly.
5. In
the result, the respondents are directed not to implemented the
impugned order of reversion unless the aforesaid exercise as directed
by this Court in the case of R.K. Prajapati (supra) which has been
reproduced hereinabove, is taken up.
6. Rule
is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J.)
(Caroline)
Top