VIJAYKUMAR I PATEL Vs. CHIEF OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.P.H. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Niyati Shah, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned Award made by the learned Labour Court, is before this Court with a submission that appointment of Mr.K.Y. Acharya is patently illegal and the appointment is in the teeth of the earlier order dtd.25/8/1989 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.2907 of 1989.

(3.) Short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the post of Sanitary Inspector in the management of the respondent - Kadi Nagar Palika, Kadi is reserved for a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Before any person could be appointed on the regular basis, on 26/2/1989, the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis with a further stipulation that the appointment shall be till the post is filled up by regular appointment. On 21/4/1989, even before the regular appointment, the respondent proposed to remove the petitioner from service, therefore, the petitioner came to this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2907 of 1987. The mater was finally disposed of on 25/8/1989 with a direction that the petitioner would be entitled to hold the post till Sanitary Inspector is appointed on basis of advertisement. Though there is some argument from the side of the respondent that the High Court did not say that the petitioner can continue till regular appointment is made, but true spirit of the order dtd.25/8/1989 clearly shows that the High Court was alive to the fact that the Municipality had issued public advertisement calling for the applications from eligible persons for the post of Sanitary Inspector and the Municipality was likely to fill that post in near future. The Court directed that the petitioner cannot escape his consequential removal nor can he assert any right to continue, if the appointment of another person is made to the post of Sanitary Inspector. In the opinion of this Court, the word 'appointment' would mean an appointment made on the basis of the advertisement and not otherwise. On 11/9/1989, the petitioner resumed the services and worked upto 30/9/1991, his services were terminated and one Mr.K.Y. Acharya, was appointed on the post. Being aggrieved by the ill-action on the part of the Municipality, the petitioner sought a Reference, which was accordingly made and was registered as Reference (LCK) No.144 of 1992. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Labour Court rejected the Reference on 19/5/1995.