JETHALAL Z BHUJ Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal.

(2.) . The plaintiff appellant filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 31.5.76 by which he was reverted and reduced in the pay scale of Clerk is illegal, void and inoperative as well as unconstitutional with further declaration that he is entitled to pay and allowances in the revised pay scale w.e.f., 1.1.72. He was appointed as a Clerk on 1.5.1958 in the Revenue Department by Collector, Kutch at Bhuj and was allocated to District Panchayat on 15.4.63. Thereafter he was promoted as Aval Karkoon and continued to work on this post till 31.5.76. When the plaintiff was promoted as Aval Karkoon there were four cadres i.e., Aval Karkoon, Extension Officer of Panchayat, Sr, Accounts Clerk and Senior Clerks. They were posts of the same grade and were transferable. Consequently after promotion as Aval Karkoon the plaintiff appellant was transferred and posted as Extension Officer, Panchayat. By the impugned order dated 31.5.76 the appellant was reverted to the post of Senior Clerk. By this order the plaintiff appellant suffered a loss of Rs. 20/- p.m. According to him the revenue qualifying examination was not compulsory for promotion of a Clerk to the post of Aval Karkoon prior to 15.4.63 and even upto the date of the suit it was not a rule for allocated servants to pass any departmental examination. According to the plaintiff it was only Aval Karkoon who was allocated to Panchayat on 15.4.73 was to pass RQE examination and such examination was not compulsory for clerks to pass. One D.M. Nal who was junior to the appellant passed RQE examination and was placed in the seniority list above the appellant. The appellant challenged the seniority list also. The seniority of 2 other persons was also challenged by the appellant.

(3.) . The defence in short was that since appellant did not pass the departmental examination he was rightly reverted and the order of reversion does not suffer any illegality. The seniority list was properly maintained and prepared. The appellant filed objection against the seniority list which was not acceptable. In this way it was pleaded that the impugned order is perfectly valid and legal.