DODIA DILIPBHAI PRABHATSINH Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issuance of direction to the respondent to exhaust the select list and keep it alive which is prepared in pursuance of advertisement dated 28/2/1991 for making appointments on the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat till the new select list is prepared. It is the case of the petitioner that he was placed by the Selection Committee in the merit list at Sr. No.16, which has been prepared in the year 1992. The petitioner stated that in Bharuch district also the process has been undertaken for making the selection on the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat / Talati-cum-Mantri etc. For this, advertisement was published in the year 1990. The petitioner gives out for the alleged ground that as the State Government has put ban on appointments, he was not given appointment. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the State Government as well as the Appointing Authority has acted arbitrarily and exhibited a clear example of the favouritism and nepotism in dealing with these matters and has made hostile discrimination in making the appointments. If the ban is there it is there throughout the State but what the petitioner submits, in Bharuch District the appointments have made whereas in Kheda district the appointments have not been made. This action of the respondents what the learned counsel for the petitioner contended, is totally unconstitutional. It is clearly what the learned counsel for the petitioner urges exhibit an example of favouritism, nepotism as well as gives out that the candidates, who are having relations with the highly placed supporters they can get the rule or the government decision moulded according to their convenience.

(2.) The respondent No.1, Secretary, Panchayat, Gram Gruh Nirman and Gram Vikas, Gandhinagar contested this petition by filing affidavit in reply. The respondent No.1 admitted that in Kheda district an advertisement dated 29/1/1991 bearing No.21 to 28/90-91 was issued inviting applications for filling up the posts of Secretary in the Gram Panchayat by selection through the Gujarat Panchayat Services Selection Board, Ahmedabad. In response to that advertisement, applications were received on 9/2/1992, a competitive written test was held and the results were declared in the month of July, 1992 and pursuance thereof a list of 27 candidates in order of the merits as well as waiting list were prepared. It is also not in dispute in the merit list / select list the petitioner's name is there at Sr. No.16.

(3.) It is the say of the respondent No.1 that in the meantime under the Government resolution dated 20/10/1991 of the Finance Department in relation to economic measures in the Government Expenditure issued directions and one of the directions was that a review of strength of staff in various cadres in each administrative department and in the heads of office under their control etc. be made and 10% reduction in each cadre be made and such posts are to be segregated. As a result of the same, the posts which become vacant and the posts those may fall vacant on account of death, retirement of employees etc. are to be abolished stage-wise. Prior approval is necessarily to be obtained from the Government by the concerned Appointing Authority for the purpose of filling up the vacant posts in the cadre of Secretary, Gram Panchayats. The respondent No.1 averred that the Department concerned prayed for grant of necessary approval from the Finance Department vide letter dated 24/9/1992 and same was accorded for giving appointments to first six candidates in the select list. It is not controverted by the respondent No.1 that for filing remaining vacancies, the matter for obtaining approval / sanction was pending with the Finance Department. The respondent No.1 stated that no approval / sanction was accorded to the appointing authority for filling up remaining vacancies due to economic measures. the reference has been made in reply to the fact that on 24/2/1993 the District Development Officer, Kheda had discussed the matter with the Secretary (Expenditure), Finance Department and the request made for sanction / approval for filling up by appointments seven posts of Talati-cum-Mantri, it is the say of the respondent the request aforesaid of the District Development Officer, Kheda was not accorded. In the reply the reasons given, for not accepting the request of the District Development officer, Kheda for grant of approval / sanction to fill in seven posts by the Finance Department is very important and I consider it to be appropriate to reproduce the same :