GENERAL SECRETARY GUJARAT MAZDOOR SENA Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Courts should interpret the constitutional provisions against the social setting of the country so as to show a complete consciousness and deep awareness of the growing requirements of the society, the increasing needs of the nation, burning problems of the day and the complex issues facing the people which the legislature in its wisdom, through beneficial legislation, seeks to solve. The judicial approach should be dynamic rather than static, pragmatic and not pedantic and elastic, rather than rigid.

(2.) Brief facts of the present group of petitions are as under: All the petitioners were appointed by the respondents in Mid Day Meal Scheme ("the Scheme" for short). According to the case of the petitioners, they were appointed and were working since many years. According to the petitioners, on each academic year, necessary forms were being filled in by the respondents and periodical appointments were being given to them with an artificial break of vacation period for which no payments were being made by the respondents to the petitioners. Some of the petitioners have worked for 15 years, 9 years, 8 years respectively. The services of the petitioners have not been regularized and there was no job security. The petitioners have pointed out that the issuance of the circular dated 8th May, 2000 has resulted into discontinuation of their services because of the fact that some of the conditions specified in the said circular, item 12 sub clause k, kh and ch. These are the items which have been objected by the petitioners and according to the petitioners, it denies right of appointment and, therefore, in this group of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the said circular dated 8th May, 2000 issued by the Commissioner of Mid Day Meal Scheme, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar. Against this group of petitions, Municipal Commissioner, Deputy Municipal Commissioner and the Deputy COllector have filed affidavit in reply and rejoinder thereto have also been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) In all these petitions, the main challenge to the circular dated 8th May, 2000 is on the ground that the said circular is unlawful, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondent Baroda Municipal Commissioner has filed affidavit in reply. According to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the Commissioner has power to issue such circular and the same is quite just, legal, proper and the petitions challenging such circular are not maintainable. The allegations made by the petitioners have been denied. According to the respondents, on each occasion, in response to the advertisements, the petitioners have been appointed for a specific period on specific terms and conditions and the contents of which have been duly agreed upon and accepted by the petitioners and, therefore, on each end of the educational year, contract has been coming to an end and, therefore, there was no relationship of master and servant and, therefore, there was no question of regularization of their services. It is also submitted that there is no discrimination or arbitrariness as alleged.