LALJIBHAI LAXMIDAS MANEK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art 220 of the Constitution which was permitted to be filed in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 199 petitioners have voiced their grievance regarding maintenance of districtwise seniority list of live stock inspectors also know as stock-men (veterinary) in the various district panchayat establishments in the panchayat service of the State functioning under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 hereinafter referred to as `the said Act and the rules made thereunder.

(2.) In order to appreciate the grievances of the petitioners a peep into the petitioners past service history will be apposite All these petitioners had joined service of the then State of bombay They joined as live stock inspectors who were then working in the Agriculture Department of the then State of Bombay In the bigger bilingual State of Bombay they were known as Stock men. Later on. these posts came to be redesignated as live stock inspectors. On the introduction of the Panchayat Rajya under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 various district panchayats were constituted. Respondents Nos. 3A to 20A are the concerned district panchayats. Respondents Nos. 3B to 20B are the dissrict development officers in the respective districts appointed under the said Act Respondents Nos. 22 to 53 are the persons who did not opt for panchayat service on the formation of the panchayat service as per the said Act.

(3.) As stated above the panchayat service was constituted under the said Act. The relevant provisions of the said Act came into force from 1-4-1963. On the coming into force of the said Act. the existing State servants came to be allocated to the panchayat service as per the provisions of sec. 203 of the said Act. Tile concerned employees were given option to opt out for the panchayat service. The petitioners opted out for panchayat service while respondents Nos. 22 to 53 did not. They preferred to continue to remain in the State service as live stock inspectors. They formed a separate cadre. So far as allocated employees like the petitioners were concerned they were fitted in different districtwise cadres of live stock inspectors in different districts under the Panchayat organization. As the concerned petitioners were working in different districtwise cadres of live stock inspectors under the panchayat set up separate districtwise semority lists were maintained by the different district panchayats under which they were working As the live stock inspectors had no promotional avenues respondent No. 1 introduced selection grades and made them available to the senior employees who were working as live stock inspectors in different districts. Senior most live stock inspectors were to be given selection grade and for that purpose 20 per cent of the posts of live stock inspectors were taken as the basis for grant of selection. grades. In other words 115 senior most employees who were working as live stock inspectors were to be given selection grades on the principle of seniority-cum-merit. The petitioners felt aggrieved by allocation of selection grades to the concerned live stock inspectors on the basis of the districtwise seniority of live stock inspectors and that is how they have come to this court by way of the present proceedings. Their grievance in the petition is two fold. Firstly it is submitted that though the petitioners are allocated employees in the panchayat service the panchayat service is part and parcel of the State service and hence those live stock inspectors who did not opt out for panchayat service and those like the petitioners who opted out for panchayat service must be treated to be on par for the purpose of maintenance of common seniority list of live stock inspectors and if such common seniority list is maintained then 20 per cent selection: grade would be available to senior most live stock inspectors on the basis of their continuous officiation in the State service which can be traced out to distant past in which the petitioners and others joined he then Bombay State service as live stock inspectors. The alternative contention of the petitioners that in any case even if separate seniority lists are to be maintained for live stock inspectors who are working in the State service strictly so called as they did not opt out for panchayat service as compared to the persons like the petitioners who actually opted out for panchayat service and became allocated employees in the panchayat service atleast so far as allocated panchayat employees are con cerned their seniority should be maintained not districtwise but Statewise for the entire panchayat service and even on that basts grant of selection grades districtwise on the basis of districtwise seniority is contrary to law and is required to be quashed.