H H PARMAR Vs. COLLECTOR RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was originally appointed on 27th July 1968 as a Surveyor by Jetpur Municipality. On 11th December 1968 he was promoted to the post of an Overseer. On 1st April 1970 he was promoted to a still higher post of an Engineer. On 12th November 1971 his services were terminated by the Municipality. He challenged that termination in a writ petition which he filed in this Court. His petition was allowed. As a result thereof he was reinstated in his post of an Engineer on 10th October 1972. On the same day he was promoted to the post of a Chief Officer. On 22nd November 1973 he was suspended from service.

(2.) It appears that the Jetpur Municipality passed on 4th November 1972 a Resolution appointing the petitioner to the post of the Chief Officer. When this appointment came to the notice of the Collector of Rajkot he in exercise of powers conferred upon him by sec. 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 stayed the operation of that Resolution. Thereafter he issued on 2nd November 1973 a notice to the Municipality to show cause why its Resolution should not be permanently stayed. It appears that Jetpur Municipality filed Special Civil Application No. 196 of 1973 in this Court in which the order of the Collector staying the implementation of the said Resolution was challenged. That petition was summarily dismissed on 13th February 1973. Letters Patent Appeal No. 15 of 1973 was filed against that order. It was dismissed on 23rd February 1973 On 10th June 1974 the Collector after hearing the municipality confirmed its interim order and permanently stayed the implementation of the said Resolution. On 29th June 1974 the municipality intimated to the petitioner that the Collector had permanently stayed the implementation of the said Resolution. It is that order which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) It has been contended by Mr. Kothari who appears on behalf of the petitioner that the Collector had no authority to stay the implementation of the Resolution of the municipality. The first argument which Mr. Kothari has raised in this behalf is that the petitioner was not heard before the Collector made the impugned order and that therefore the principles of natural justice were violated. The second argument which he has raised is that the appointment of the petitioner was not unlawful. Thirdly he has argued that under sec. 258 the Collector has no authority or jurisdiction to make the impugned Order. He has also argued that the impugned order was unlawful because the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 258 were not complied with.