MAHESH JETHNAND MULCHANDANI Vs. KANDLA PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Shri Dhaval D. Vyas, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri R.J. Oza, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 19.08.2008, produced at Annexure A to the petition, by which respondent No.1 has appointed respondent No.2 on the post of Junior Clerk/Typist in the pay scale of Rs.4300-120-5260-130-8120, which according to the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the recruitment rules and guidelines issued by respondent No.3 prohibiting the direct recruitment of Class-III and IV employees. It is also further prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to grant permission to the petitioners either on adhoc or on regular basis on the post of Junior Clerk/Typist in the order of seniority.

(3.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that both these petitioners are serving as Class-IV employees as Messenger and Daftary in respondent No.1 Kandla Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as KPT). It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No.2 was initially appointed as Messenger on compassionate ground in the year 2001 and thereafter her services were regularized as Messenger in the KPT and that she is junior most Messenger in the seniority list. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No.2 was given compassionate appointment as Messenger as her father who was working in KPT expired while in service. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that service conditions of the employees working in KPT is regulated by statutory rules known as Kandla Port Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulation, 1964. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that despite the fact that respondent No.2 was appointed as regular Messenger with effect from 2001, respondent No.1 for oblique reasons appointed her as regular Junior Clerk and therefore, number of representations/objections were made and despite the same, respondent No.2 came to be continued as Class-III employees i.e. Junior Clerk initially on adhoc basis from the year 2002 and that thereafter by impugned order, she has been appointed as Class-III Junior Clerk/Typist against all known recruitment procedure, illegally and arbitrarily. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that as per the statutory rules and guidelines, 90% posts in Class-III and IV are to be filled in by direct recruitment and 10% posts in Class-III are to be filled in by way of promotion.