Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2148/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2148 of 2010
=========================================================
PROF.CHANDUBHAI
K PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHAIRMAN
ROFEL TRUST & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AJ YAGNIK for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
6.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 25/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to
challenge the order dated 05.10.2009 of Gujarat Affiliated Colleges
Services Tribunal in Application No.19 of 2007 whereby the
petitioner’s claim for being not declared surplus was dismissed. The
petitioner’s claim was based upon the analogy of the policy contained
in Government Resolution dated 12.4.2007 which was issued for
absorption of surplus school teachers due to introduction of pattern
of higher secondary education. The petitioner had, in fact,
challenged his transfer on account of being treated as junior to
another professor and it was the contention of the petitioner that
the other professor was appointed on the same day, in the same
selection process and had worked for an equal length of time; and,
therefore, the petitioner being older in age, the other professor
ought to have been declared surplus for the purpose of transfer.
2. Even
as no evidence appears to have been led before the Tribunal in proof
of age of both the professors concerned, even assuming that the
petitioner was older in age, he could not have been treated as senior
to the other professor because admittedly the other professor was
above the petitioner in the selection list.
3. It
is settled in judgment dated 11.02.2010 of this Court in SCA No.1614
of 2009 and accepted in the policy of the State Government contained
in Government Resolution dated 31.3.1989 that in case of candidates
selected in the same selection process, the candidate higher in order
is to be considered senior. There being no dispute about the fact
that the other professor was at serial No.1 in the selection list and
the petitioner was at serial No.2, the petitioner could not have
claimed seniority only on the basis of his age. Therefore, the
impugned order of the Tribunal is not required to be interfered.
Accordingly, the petition is summarily dismissed.
Sd/-
(
D.H.Waghela, J.)
(KMG
Thilake)
Top