RAJNIKANT R SATA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Rajnikant R. Sata has filed the present petition seeking to quash the order passed on 29.1.85 by the Collector of Electricity Duty, Government of Gujarat.

(2.) The petitioner-Rajnikant Sata was initially appointed as a clerk in the year 1972 in Industries, Mines and Power Department (hereinafter referred to as IMPD) of the respondent-Government. There was a vacancy of Electricity Duty Inspector at Surat and therefore, the petitioner was asked to go from Rajkot to Surat on deputation on 2.12.1980. Accordingly, the petitionner joined his new posting. It is further claimed that as there was a clear vacancy of Electricity Duty Inspector at Surat, a Selection Committee was appointed in order to select a person in order to fill in the said vacancy. He participated in the said selection process and was selected by the Selection Committee and was appointed by the order dated 29.1.81 as Electricity Duty Inspector at Surat on probation for one year. Subsequently, said probation period was extended for one year by the order dated. 31.12.1982 and ultimately, he was confirmed in the said post. But all of a sudden an order was passed on 29.1.1985 ordering that he was reverted to his parent office, i.e. the Chief Electrical Inspector, Ahmedabad in his original post as clerk. The petitioner has, therefore, come before this Court to get a relief against the said order of posting by the Collector of Electricity Duty on 29.1.1985 (Annexure. E to the petition.)

(3.) It is the contention of the respondents that there were two separate establishments (1) establishment of Collector of Electricity Duty and (2) the office of the Chief Electrical Inspector. The petitioner was originally selected and appointed in the office of the Chief Electrical Inspector, Ahmedabad and he was not in the establishment of the Collector of Electricity Duty. It is further contended that there was no proper establishment of Selection Committee; that the Selection Committee was improperly constituted and the persons who participated in the said Committee were not eligible for participating in the same. Consequently the selection of the present petitioner is illegal and invalid. The Government has taken a decision to set aside the same and as he was originally belonging to the office of the Chief Electrical Inspector, the order was issued repatriating him to the said department. Thus it is contended that there is no infringement of any fundamental right of the petitioner and consequently, the present petition should be dismissed.