MALLHARRAO KRISTRAO GADGOLI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Gadgoli who was a permanent clerk in the district of Dharwar was officiating as an aval karkun in that district. On 3 September, 1956 when that district was in the State of Bombay he was reverted as a clerk by the then Collector of Dharwar. It is undisputed that the reversion was made on the ground "that Gadgoli's record was not good and that his performance was found to be much below the average for an aval karkun."

(2.) Gadgoli preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner who made an order on 1 August, 1959 directing his promotion as an aval karkun temporarily for a period of one year and that his work might be watched during that period. There was a further direction that his confirmation as aval karkun should depend upon the reports of his superiors of his performance as aval karkun. The Divisional Commissioner was persuaded to make this order for the reason that his scrutiny of the confidential sheets of the petitioner disclosed considerable improvement in the work of the petitioner during a period of two years preceding the order.

(3.) The petitioner next made an application to the Divisional Commissioner for a reconsideration of the order, but on 23 June, 1962 the Divisional Commissioner directed the petitioner to appeal to Government under rule 19(b) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, if he felt aggrieved by the earlier order made by him. The petitioner did appeal under that provision, but on 2 December, 1963, the appeal was rejected by Government. Meanwhile, in Writ Petition No. 72 of 1964 presented to this Court another aval karkun who had been similarly reverted, this Court made a direction that the Divisional Commissioner who had dismissed the appeal of that petitioner should hear him and the others who had appealed from the order of the Collector. Gadgoli who is the petitioner in this writ petition was one of those persons who were heard by the Divisional Commissioner in obedience to the direction made by this Court, and, although the Divisional Commissioner did reach the conclusion that the supersession of at least thirteen persons was unjustified, he could make no order in the case of the petitioner and eleven others since there were other proceedings pending in regard to their representations such as appeals and departmental enquiries. This order was made by the Divisional Commissioner on 13 February, 1963. It is thereafter that the appeal preferred by the petitioner under rule 19(b) of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was dismissed on 2 December, 1963.