N N PARMAR Vs. J K DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the validity and legality of the order dated 26-2-79 passed by the Manager Government Photo Litho Press and Photo Registry Ahmedabad which is at Annexure C to Special Civil Application No. 573 of 1979 has been brought in challenge by the petitioner of that petition. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 3567 of 1983 on the other hand challenges the action of the Respondent-State of Gujarat and the Manager Government Photo Litho Press by which the aforesaid order has not been implemented pending Special Civil Application No. 573 of 1979 on account of the interim directions given by this court in that petition and which according to the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 3567 of 1983 have been misinterpreted by the concerned authorities. Some other reliefs have been prayed for by the petitioner of this petition which will be referred in the later part of this judgment an appropriate stage.

(2.) In order to appreciate the grievance of the concerned petitioners in these two petitions it will be necessary to note a few introductory facts leading to the present petitions. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 573 of 1979 is Mr. N. N. Parmar. Respondent No. 3 in that petition is Mr. M. J. Patel. These two employees are working under the Manager Photo Litho Press at Ahmedabad who in his turn is acting under the control of the Secretary Department of Industries Mines & Power Department State of Gujarat. Mr. Parmar and Mr. Patel are the main contesting parties in these proceedings. In Special Civil Application No. 3567 of 1983 Mr. Patel is the petitioner while Mr. Parmar is respondent No. 4. One Mr. S. R. Singh is joined as Respondent No. 5 in Special Civil Application No. 3557 of 1983. For the sake of convenience I will refer to Mr. Parmar as the petitioner and Mr. Patel as Respondents No. 3 in the light of the sequence in which they are arraigned as respective parties in Special Civil Application No. 573 of 1979 It is the contention of the petitioner that by the impugned order dated 26-2-1979 Annexure C to Special Civil Application No. 573 of 1979 the petitioner is sought to be reverted from the post of camera operator to the post of Helio printer in the same press while Respondent No. 3 is sought to be promoted vice the petitioner in the said post with effect from 1-1-1973. This act on the part of the respondents according to the petitioner is illegal and unconstitutional. It violates the petitioners fundamental rights under Article 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner submits that before passing of the impugned order the petitioner had been holding the post of camera operator since 1970 and there is no reason to abruptly revert the petitioner to the lower post and to push up Respondent No. 3 in that post retrospectively from 1-1-1973.........

(3.) Before the main grievances canvassed by the respective petitioners in these petitions are highlighted it would be necessary to quickly glance through the service history of petitioner Mr. Parmar and Respondent No 3-Mr. Patel who is the petitioner in the cross petition.