LAWS(GJH)-2003-9-19

MANOJ NAGARDAS PANCHHIWALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On September 03, 2003
MANOJ NAGARDAS PANCHHIWALA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the order dated 3rd July 2000 passed by the learned Single of this Court (Coram: Ms.R.M. Doshit, J.) dismissing Special Civil Application No.6054 of 2000 filed by the appellant-petitioner the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was qualified in the sense that the has passed SSC Examination initially on 7.3.1991. He was appointed as Daily Wager with respondent no.3-Deesa Nagarpalika. However, his services were terminated on 1.2.1992. Therefore, he approached the Labour Court by way of a reference by raising industrial dispute. During pendency of the reference before the Labour Court removal order of the appellant was withdrawn on the condition that he will withdraw his case filed before the Labour Court. Accordingly, with effect from 2.4.1994 he was appointed on the post of Peon on a fixed monthly salary. In this way he made his come back in service with respondent no.3-Nagarpalika. Within a period of three years after his reinstatement in service as Peon in 1994 he applied for promotion to the higher post of Clerk on the ground that he was qualified to be promoted on the said post of Clerk. Accordingly, by order dated 25.11.1997 (Annexure 'B' to the petition) he was appointed as permanent Clerk on temporary basis, by the President of respondent no.3-Deesa Nagarpalika. His appointment along with others was approved by the General Body of respondent, Nagarpalika in its meeting held on 28.11.1997.

(3.) Coming to know about the illegal appointments of the appellant-petitioner and others made by Deesa Nagarpalika without following any procedure the Collector, Banaskantha issued Show Cause Notice against the appellant-petitioner on 9.7.1998 (Annexure 'C'). The same was replied by the appellant-petitioner. But the copy of the same was not produced on record of the case. Be that as it may. It seems that after considering the reply the Collector, Banaskantha set aside the order dated 25.11.1997 and the Resolution dated 28.11.1997.