S H BHAMBHANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ or order to quash order dated June 10, 1991 passed by the Commissioner, Rajkot Municipal Corporation appointing the respondent Nos.3 & 4 as Deputy City Engineers. The petitioner has also prayed to declare that Paragraph-6 of the proposed Rules relating to recruitment to the post of Deputy City Engineer (Civil) is illegal, void and of no effect whatsoever. The petitioner has further prayed to direct the Rajkot Municipal Corporation to promote him with effect from the date when his juniors, i.e. Respondent Nos.3 & 4 were promoted to the post of Deputy City Engineers and/or to give him deemed date of promotion on the post of Deputy City Engineer with all consequential benefits like re-fixation/ difference of pay, arrears of pay and pension with 15% interest within the time to be specified by the Court. The petitioner has also prayed to declare that the appointments of the respondent Nos.3 & 4 as Deputy City Engineers (Civil) are illegal, improper and not made in bona fide exercise of powers.

(2.) The petitioner is a Diploma-Holder in Civil Engineering. He was appointed by way of direct recruitment as Deputy Executive Engineer on April 13. 1971 by the Municipal Corporation, Rajkot. According to him, in the seniority list of Deputy Executive Engineers, who were either promotees or direct recruits as Deputy Executive Engineers, his name figures at serial No.3 and he is eligible for promotion to the next post of Deputy City Engineer.

(3.) On May 1, 1991, the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation made a proposal to the Standing Committee and the Rules i Committee to frame recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy City Engineers. The Standing Committee of Municipal Corporation, in its meeting dated May 8, 1991, decided to adopt the proposed Rules by its Resolution No. 145. By the proposed Rules, ratio of 3:1 between Degree-Holders and Diploma-Holders was provided for making appointment to the post of Deputy City Engineer. The Standing Committee decided that its decision be placed before the Genera] Body for its approval. On May 10, 1991, the Rules Committee approved Resolution No. 145 passed by the Standing Committee. The Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, on the same day, issued orders of appointment of five Deputy City Engineers from the Cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer in anticipation of approval of the Rules by the General Board as well as by the State Government, pursuant to which the respondent Nos.3 & 4 were also appointed as Deputy City Engineers. On June 7, 1991, an advertisement was issued in the local newspapers mentioning the agenda for the General Board meeting of the Corporation to he held on June 19, 1991, where one of the items of the agenda was consideration of the Rules adopted by the Standing Cornmittee of the Corporation. On June 19, 1991. the meeting of General Body of the Corporation was convened wherein the decision of the Standing Committee was approved and the proposed Rules were forwarded to the State Government for its approval. The case of the petitioner is that the order dated June 10, 1991 promoting the respondent Nos.3 & 4 is against criteria of seniority-cum-merits and the same is liable to be set aside, as it has been passed on extraneous and irrelevant considerations. The petitioner has stated in the petition that the promotion of the respondent Nos.3 & 4 is arbitrary, inasmuch as seniority of: Deputy Executive Engineers was overlooked, not on any valid ground, but only with a view to giving them undue benefit, as they are close relatives of the Chairman of Planning Committee and the then Mayor of the Municipal Corporation and, therefore, their appointments are liable to be set aside. It is averred by the petitioners that the appointments of the respondent Nos.3 & 4 made on June 10,1991 subject to the provisions of recruitment rules, which were newly framed, are ineffective, as the Rules are not approved by the State Government within reasonable time. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant petition and claimed reliefs to which reference is made earlier.