S A ZALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . "THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE COURT AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. A JUDGE IS TRAINED TO LOOK AT THINGS OBJECTIVELY UNINFLUENCED BY CONSIDERATION OF POLICY OR EXPEDIENCY BUT AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER GENERALLY LOOKS AT THINGS FROM THE STAND POINT OF POLICY AND EXPEDIENCY. THE HABIT OF MIND OF AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER SO FORMED CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO CHANGE FROM FUNCTION TO FUNCTION OR FROM ACT TO ACT. SO IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT SOME RESTRICTIONS SHALL BE IMPOSED ON TRIBUNALS IN THE MATTER OF PASSING ORDERS AFFECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES."

(2.) . The petitioners in this petition were initially appointed as Class IV Employees in the respondent corporation. The petitioners were confirmed as Class IV employees in due course. The petitioners were possessing necessary educational qualifications of SSC and had also passed GCC Examination (for typing). Thus, the petitioners were possessing all the requisite qualifications for being considered for promotion from the cadre of Class IV to the post of lower division clerk cum typist. On 29th May, 1997, the petitioners were promoted to the post of lower division clerk cum typist as approved by the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation. The petitioners were kept on probation for a period of one year. On 17.6.1998, their period of probation was extended by one year. On 29th September, 1999, all the petitioners were confirmed on the post of lower division clerk cum typist. Thereafter, the respondent corporation has passed the reversion orders of all the petitioners, on the ground that the Government has objected to the said promotion. Said orders of reversion of the petitioner have been passed by respondent NO.2 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the petitioners have challenged the reversion orders from the post of lower division clerk cum typist to their substantive post in class IV cadre.

(3.) . In the present petition, there is also a challenge by way of draft amendment to set aside the communication of the Government dated 27th September, 2000 on which reliance was made and the reversion orders of the petitioners had been passed by the respondents. The government communication dated 27th September, 2000 is also under challenge on the ground that the Government has decided to cancel the promotion of the petitioners and directed respondent No. 2 to cancel such promotion orders of the petitioners without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.