ABDULHAFIS A. SHAIKH Vs. COLLECTOR PANCHMAHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred praying for following relief(s):

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on 08.01.1965 on the post of Octroi Naka Karkoon. Thereafter looking to his sincerity and honesty he was promoted to the post of Conservancy Inspector in the Health Department with effect 12.06.1970. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Sanitary Inspector vide order dated 12.08.1988 as he was the senior most in the seniority list. The order of the promotion of the petitioner was challenged by one Mr. R.R. Patel before the Collector which came to be rejected. Again Mr. R. R Patel, preferred application before Collector which was allowed and the order dated 12.08.1988 promoting the petitioner on the post of Sanitary Inspector was quashed and set aside. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of Regular Civil Suit before the Civil Court at Godhra and interim relief on application Exh. 5 was granted by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Godhra. Against that order, the Respondent No. 2 filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 141 of 1993 before the District Court at Godhra and the learned Assistant Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra allowed the said appeal and the order passed below Exh.5 by the learned Civil Judge was vacated. Against the aforesaid order, passed by the learned Assistant Judge vacating the interim relief granted by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) at Godhra a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.1292 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner and subsequently it was permitted to be converted into Civil Revision Application No. 175 of 1994. The said Civil Revision Application came up for hearing before this Court and the said Revision Application was withdrawn. In pursuance to the above, the petitioner came to be reverted to the post of Conservancy Inspector and the order reverting the petitioner to the aforesaid post was passed on 03.02.1994. The petitioner has made representation to the respondents on 28.02.1994. On 08.03.1994, the respondents sought opinion from the advocate for the Godhra Municipality. Inspite of the legal opinion given by the advocate for the municipality, no steps have been taken by the municipality to promote the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner challenges the aforesaid action of the respondents of not promoting him to the post of Senior Clerk and promoting other six persons who are juniors to the petitioner to higher posts.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has raised contention that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sanitary Inspector by virtue of bye-law No. 81 of the Bye-laws of the Godhra Municipality though he had not passed the Sanitary Inspector's examination. He further submitted that as per Rule 81 of the Rules, the Respondent No. 3 has been wrongly promoted