A P BHATT Vs. COLLECTOR OF PANCHMAHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . These two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution moved by different employees who are Deputy Mamlatdars in the revenue department of the State of Gujarat working under the concerned Collectors of the Districts have raised grievances pertaining to their service conditions. As these grievances raise common questions for consideration, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) . In order to appreciate the grievances of the petitioners, it will be necessary to note the background facts leading to each of these petitions.

(3.) . Relevant facts concerning Special Civil Application No. 937 of 1987: 7 petitioners who are working as Deputy Mamlatdars under the first respondent Collector, Panchmahals District were originally appointed as clerks and they were subsequently promoted as Deputy Mamlatdars and according to them, they were working as such for a period ranging from five years to 12 years by the time they filed the aforesaid petition in this Court. The petitioners belong to subordidate revenue service which includes persons appointed as clerks, Circle Inspectors and typists in the lower division and also Deputy Mamlatdars and Circle Inspectors in the upper division. When the petitioners joined as clerks, they belonged to lower divisions of subordinate service. As per the departmental rules, to which we will make reference hereinafter, before an employee belonging to lower division of subordinate revenue service can be considered for promotion to the upper division and can be made Deputy Mamlatdar, he had to pass relevant revenue qualifying examination. Originally, such examination was prescribed by the State of Gujarat under the rules framed under the provisions of Art. 309 of the Constitution named and stayled as 'the Revenue Qualifying Examination Rules, 1970 ('the RQE Rules' for short). None of the petitioners had passed the said examination. However, these rules were subsequently replaced by another set of rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution and they were named and stayled as 'Gujarat Lower Revenue Qualifying Examination Rules, 1978' as well as 'Gujarat Higher Revenue Qualifying Examination Rules, 1978' ('LRQE Rules' and HRQE Rules' for short). As per the LRQE Rules, the concerned employee in the lower division of the subordinate revenue service viz., clerks, circle inspectors or typists had to pass LRQ examination in three chances before they could get eligibility for being considered for promotion as Deputy Mamlatdars. The petitioner's case is that they passed the LRQ examination within prescribed chances and, therefore, as per the LRQE Rules, they were to be considered as regular candidates who had passed the examination within prescribed chances and within specified period. Still, however, the respondent authorities were treating them to have passed the said examination beyond specified period and were treating them as late latiffs. That stand was taken by the respondents on the ground that earlier, one junior of the petitioners Mr. Sanchawala who was working in the Collector's Office had during the time RQE Rules were holding the field, applied for permission to appear in the examination somewhere in 1972. It is of course a fact that Mr. Sanchawala did not pass the said examination and ultimately passed LRQ examination in 1982 alongwith the petitioners. But it was held by the departmental authorities that the petitioner's period for passing the examination started moment permission was granted to their junior Mr. Sanchawala in 1972 and that specified period was over when the petitioners passed LRQ examination in three chances. Hence, they cannot be said to have passed the examination within specified period and, therefore, they were treated as persons who had not passed the examination within prescribed chances and they were treated as late latiffs or irregular and that is how, their seniority in the Deputy Mamlatdar's cadre was fixed vis-a-vis their erstwhile junior's. It is this stand of the respondents which has a direct impact on the fixation of inter-se seniority of the petitioners on the one hand and their juniors on the other in the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdars. That has triggered off the present litigation. The petitioners in this connection have also made grievance regarding legality and validity of Rule 4 and proviso to Rule 5 of the LRQE Rules to which we will make reference hereafter. These provisions have been challenged because chances earlier availed of by the clerks under the old rules of 1970 have to be treated to be chances availed of under the LRQE Rules of 1978 and that seems to be the basis of the stand taken by the respondent authorities against the petitioners and consequently, these provisions are challenged on the ground of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the light of these grievances of the petitioners, appropriate reliefs are sought for from this Court for declaring these provisions as ultra vires and for quashing and setting aside the seniority list at Annexure 'G' which is based, according to the petitioners, on this wrong stand on the part of the respondents, and a further prayer is sought that the respondents may be directed to treat the petitioners to have passed the requisite LRQ examination within prescribed chances and within specified period which would imply that they also passed as regular candidates. The petitioners had apprehended that by wrong fixation of seniority, they were likely to be reverted and hence, they moved the aforesaid writ petition for appropriate final relief as well as interim relief. Facts relating to Spl. C. A. No. 3730 of 1987 :