PATEL CHANDUBHAI K Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was originally filed by 41 petitioners occupying different posts under different District Local Boards. At the hearing of this petition Mr. Daru has stated to me that the petitioners No. 15 to 28 and the petitioners No. 37 and 38 seek no relief in this petition. Therefore so far as this petition concerns them it is dismissed. It proceeds at the instance of the remaining petitioners who are petitioners No. I to 14 14 29 to 31 and 32 to 36. The petitioners No. 1 to 14 who have been classified into group (A) had been holding different posts under the District Local Boards before they were dissolved on 1st April 1963. Similarly the petitioners No. 29 to 36 had also been holding different posts under the District Local Boards prior to the same date. With the dissolution of the District Local Boards on the said date by virtue of sec. 326(a) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act 1961 the services of the aforesaid employees stood transferred to the respective District Panchayats which replaced the former District Local Boards. That was one of the effects of sec. 326(a) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. On 11th November 1965 the State Government in exercise of its powers under sec. 323 read with sub-sec. (3) of sec. 203 of the said Act made the Gujarat Panchayats Service (Absorption Seniority Pay and Allowances) Rules 1965 Those rules were made with the object of absorbing the petitioners and similar other employees of the former District Local Boards into the equivalent posts in the Panchayat Service. In pursuance of the aforesaid Rules nine orders were made by the State Government which are at Annexures C-1 to C-9 to the petition. The order at annexure C-1 was made on 26th December 1966. The order at annexure C-2 was made on 19th August 1967 The order at annexure C-3 was made on 1st December 1967. The order at annexure C-4 was made on 20th September 1967. The order at annexure C-5 was made on 21st September 1967. The order at annexure C-6 was made on 16th September 1967. The order at annexure C-7 was made on 19th August 1967. The order at annexure C-8 was made on 6 October 1966 and the order at annexure C-9 was made on 28th February 1966. Originally when this petition was filed all these orders were challenged by the petitioners. However at the hearing of this petition Mr. Daru has confined his challenge to the orders at annexures C-1 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 and C-8. The order at annexure C-1 is challenged by the petitioners No 5 6 7 15 16 29 and 30. The order at annexure C-3 is challenged by the petitioners No. 2 17 18 19 20 21 and 34. The order at annexure C-4 is challenged by the petitioners No. 10 to 13 and 24 26 and 27. The order at annexure C-5 is challenged by the petitioners No. 1 and 23. The order at annexure C-6 is challenged by the petitioners No. 32 and 33. The order at annexure C-8 is challenged by the petitioners No. 14A and 28.

(2.) The only contention which has been raised by the aforesaid petitioners in this petition is that the impugned orders have not been made in conformity with the aforesaid Rules and that they violate the said Rules.

(3.) Before I proceed to decide this contention on merits it is necessary to express an opinion on the form in which the petition has been filed. On reading the petition it appears that 41 petitioners who originally filed this petition had been holding different posts under different District Local Boards. By the impugned orders an attempt has been made to absorb them into different equivalent posts. Their respective pay-scales en they had been serving under different District Local Boards had been different. It appears that the nature and magnitude of their respective duties which they had been performing under different District Local Boards and their respective educational qualifications were also different. The respective equivalent posts in which they are now sought to be absorbed carry for them different pay scales. The nature and magnitude of their respective duties in the equivalent posts are also different and there also appears difference in their respective educational qualifications required for being appointed to the respective equivalent posts when they are compared with the respective qualifications which were required for being appointed to the posts which they held under different District Local Boards. In respect of all these petitioners the State Government after having taken into account different facts and circumstances in regard to all these petitioners have made different absorption orders. Under these circumstances it is extremely difficult to say that a common petition by 41 petitioners placed under different situations could have been justifiably filed. When the Court considers whether for the purpose of absorption the test of pay-scales or the test of educational and other qualifications or the test of nature and magnitude of duties has been satisfied it has to consider the facts of each case in light of the aforesaid factors. An absorption order under these circumstances may be justified in one case and may not be justified in another case. It is absolutely clear in my mind therefore that this petition filed be 41 petitioners suffers from serious misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties. Such a petition cannot be entertained.