KAMLABEN MADHAVJI PARMAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. H.L. Jani is present in the Court and when he was called upon to make submissions on behalf of respondent, he made a statement that he has no papers of (the case nor any instructions in the matter to appear. In this case, though this petition is of (he year 1985, the respondents have not filed reply to the Special Civil Application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the Special Civil Application.

(2.) The petitioner, a part time employee, a Water Bearer, filed this Special Civil Application before this Court and prayer has been made for direction to the respondent for quashing and setting aside the action of the respondent not considering the petitioner for the permanent post of class IV service.

(3.) The petitioner, as per her case in the Special Civil Application was appointed as Water Bearer in the year 1979 at a monthly salary of Rs. 75/-. It is not in dispute that it was a part-time appointment. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though it was a part-time appointment, the respondents were taking full time work from the petitioner. This is a question of fact and this Court, sitting under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go on this question. Mere averment made by the petitioner that the respondents were taking more than eight hours' work from her cannot be accepted in absence of any cogent and satisfactory evidence produced on record by the petitioner. The petitioner is an interested person and she can make any statement. Moreover, when the appointment was only part-time, it is too difficult to accept this averment of the petitioner. The salary for part-time work, which was given to the petitioner, was increased from time to time. So, it is a case of part-time employment. The petitioner has not produced order of her appointment as a part-timer. It is also not case of the petitioner that she has been appointed as part-time Water Bearer after selection. It is admitted case of petitioner that Water Bearer is class IV post. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that rules are there for selection and appointment in the category of class IV. So, the petitioner's appointment as a part-time itself is dehors the rules or in violation of provisions of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The salary for the part-time work which was initialiy paid to the petitioner has been increased from time to time and presently, as per the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, she is drawing Rs. 450/- p.m. It appears from the record of this petition that the petitioner has been appointed as a part-time employee and naturally when she was in part-time employment, the working hours could not be more than two hours.