BABULAL CHIMANLAL BHIL Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Digant Joshi, learned A.G.P. on behalf of the respondent waive service of rule.

(2.) Mr.Girish Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the authorities on 28.3.2000 whereby the representation made by the petitioner is turned down and the order of reversion dated 13.9.1999 is upheld and is approved. Mr.Patel, learned advocate pointed out that earlier a Spl.C.A. No.7184/99 was filed by the present petitioner challenging the said revision order and in that Spl.C.A.. this court passed an order on 2.12.1999. The petitioner was asked to make a representation to the authorities. The relevant portion of the order of this court in the earlier petition is as under :-

(3.) It is after the aforesaid order that the present order came to be passed. Perusal of the impugned order will reveal that all the contentions raised by the petitioner were considered by the authority in detailed and the authority has set out the detailed reasons for not accepting the contention/representation made by the petitioner. It is specifically mentioned in the said order that as the requirement of the passing departmental examination is necessary, there is no possibility of giving any exemption from the same and request of the petitioner for granting exemption on the ground of his age of 45 years is rejected. The second contention of the petitioner regarding the uncertainty of the departmental examination which the petitioner is required to pass is also turned down by the said order by setting out that after the petitioner was appointed to the post of Superintendent as many as 17 times the examination was held by the department. It is also noted in the order that the petitioner did not make any attempt to appear in the said examination. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding he having passed the two departmental examination while he was serving in the Agricultural Department is also dealt with appropriately. It is stated that after the petitioner came to be appointed to the post of Superintendent in the Tourism Department, his mode of recruitment and nature of work both changed and therefore under the relevant rules the petitioner was required to pass the departmental examination. Lastly it is mentioned in the order that the petitioner was given the reasonable opportunities of hearing and it was only after affording the opportunity of hearing that the said order came to be passed.