SURESHKUMAR G BHATT Vs. SIDHPUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the resolution No.61, at Annexure "F" to the petition, passed by the municipality appointing the respondent No.3 to the post of Shop-Inspector.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was recruited as a clerk in the municipality from 8th January 1988 after selection by the staff selection committee. The petitioner was a graduate in arts and also a graduate in law. According to him, he was senior to the respondent No.3 in the cadre of clerks. On a vacancy arising in the post of Shop Inspector, the petitioner addressed a letter on 24th August 1993 to the Administrator of the municipality for being considered for the post in view of his qualifications. However thereafter, by the impugned resolution, the respondent No.3 was appointed as the Shop-Inspector in the pay-scale of Rs.1400 - 2600.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 was not qualified for the said appointment, because, he was not a graduate and had studied only upto First Year B.Com. Moreover, no prior sanction of the State Government was obtained before appointing the respondent No.3. According to the petitioner, the appointment of the respondent No.3, which was contrary to the rules, was a glaring instance of favouritism and the petitioner, who admittedly was senior to the respondent No.3, was ignored while issuing the impugned resolution.