1967 Supreme(Guj) 33
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.R.BAKSHI, P.N.BHAGWATI
G.L.SHUKLA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 351 of 1963
Decided On : 03/13/1967
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 14 – Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 – Sections 1, 205, 209, 157 – Validity of Provisions – Petitions raise an interesting question as to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 – Sec. 1 of the Act came into force on 24th February 1962 and sub-sec. (3) of sec. 1 provided that the remaining provisions of the Act shall come into force on such date or dates as may be appointed by the State Government was the date appointed by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under sec. 1 sub-sec. (3) and the remaining provisions of the Act therefore came into force on that date – By an order made under sec. 157 of the Act the State Government transferred to the respective District Panchayats the powers functions and duties exercised and performed by the Public Works Department of the State Government in various Divisions and Sub-divisions – Held, Words as it may deem fit would not provide sufficient guidance for many officers and servants may be quite fit or proper for the panchayat service but their service may not be necessary for efficient administration of the Panchayat Organization – Legislature therefore provided the standard for selection by using the words as may be necessary to enable the panchayats to discharge efficiently their functions and duties under the Act – But these words are not necessary in sec. 206 (1) (i) for the requirement denoted by these words is already taken into account at the time of the allotment under sec. 157 by reason of the words as may be necessary to enable the district panchayat to exercise the powers and discharge the functions and duties so transferred in sec. 157 – It is therefore not possible to accept the contention of the petitioners that sec. 206 (1) (i) confers a naked arbitrary power on the State Government to discriminate between one Government servant and another – Discretion is undoubtedly conferred on the State Government to select officers and servants out of the staff allotted under sec. 157 for allocation to the panchayat service but that discretion is guided and controlled by a principle or policy laid down by the Legislature and is not vagrant or uncanalised. Sec. 206 (1) (i) cannot therefore be held do be violative of Art. 14 – Petitions Dismissed
( 1 ) THESE petitions raise an interesting question as to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Sec. 1 of the Act came into force on 24th February 1962 and sub-sec. (3) of sec. 1 provided that the remaining provisions of the Act shall come into force on such date or dates as may be appointed by the State Government. 21st March 1963 was the date appointed by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under sec. 1 sub-sec. (3) and the remaining provisions of the Act therefore came into force on that date. By an order made under sec. 157 of the Act the State Government transferred to the respective District Panchayats the powers functions and duties exercised and performed by the Public Works Department of the State Government in various Divisions and Sub-divisions with effect from 1st April 1963. The Public Works Department consists of five wings namely Roads and Buildings Irrigation Public Health) Electrical and Mechanical and the divisions and sub-divisions of which the powers functions and duties were transferred belonged to the Roads and Buildings and Irrigation Wings. Each of these divisions comprised Class I Class III and Class IV servants belonging to the State service and each of the sub-divisions comprised Class 1 Class III and Class IV servants of the State service. We are concerned in these petitions with Class III and Class IV servants and we will therefore confine our attention only to them. Class III servants consisted of overseers clerks tracers draftsmen assistant draftsmen typists computers and store-keepers while Class IV servants consisted of Chowkidars and Peons. The Order by which the functions powers and duties of these divisions and sub-divisions were transferred also allotted to the respective District Panchayats Class III and Class IV servants serving in these divisions and sub-divisions under sec. 157 of the Act. Class III and Class IV servants apprehended that the State Government will immediately proceed to allocate them to the Panchayat Service under sec. 206 (1) (i) of the Act and the State Government took a step in the direction by issuing a Notification dated 22nd March 1963 under sec. 321 (1) authorizing the Superintending Engineers of various Circles to exercise the power of the State Government under sec. 206 (1) (i) in respect of Class III and Class IV servants. The petitioners who are Clerks belonging to Class III services thereupon preferred Petition No. 351 of 1963 on behalf of themselves and other Clerks of the Roads and Buildings and Irrigation Wings of the Public Works Department and the petitioners who are Class III and IV servants preferred Petition No. 382 of 1963 on behalf of themselves and other Class III and Class IV servants except Clerks belonging to the said two Wings of the Public Works Department. These petitions challenged the vires of secs. 205 205 and 209 of the Act and sought to restrain the State Government and the Superintending Engineers of various Circles from making any orders of allocation under sec. 206 of the Act in respect of Class III and Class IV servants serving in the divisions and sub-divisions transferred under the order. Immediately on filing the petitions the petitioners applied for interim relief and on the application for interim relief a consent order was passed as a result of which the respondents agreed to stay their hands and not to issue any allocation orders pending the disposal of the petitions. During the pendency of the petitions the Act was amended by the Legislature and a new sec. 206a was introduced. The petitioners therefore after obtaining leave of the Court amended the petitions by introducing a paragraph challenging the vires of sec. 206a. The petition as amended thus impugned the validity of four sections namely secs. 205 206 206 and 209.
( 2 ) THERE were three grounds on which the validity of these sections