1998 Supreme(Guj) 220
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.R.Dave, K.SREEDHAR RAO
M.L.VANKAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 997 of 1982
Decided On : 04/22/1998
Headnote:Special Civil Application No. 997 of 1982 - Decided on 22th April, 1998
Surveyor (Town Planning & Valuation Department) Recruitment Rules, 1975 - Rule 3(b)(ii) - Planning Assistant (Town Planning & Valuation Department) Recruitment Rules, 1975 - Rule 3(b)(iii) - Petition to struck down the rules & quash the selection for the post of surveyor made on 15.12.1981 & 3.3.1982 - Respondent No. 3 to 8 appointed without issuance of any public advertisement or inviting application from any source - Respondent No. 3 to 8 & some others do not possess technical qualification - No rationale between the qualification prescribed under the rules & the nature of the work done by surveyors & planning assistants - Held, rule is not legal & proper & deserves to be struck down but quashing of the appointment now is not justified.
We are of the view that as qualifications prescribed under rule 3(b) (ii) of the Surveyors Rules and rule 3 (b) (iii) of the Planning Assistantss Rule have no nexus with the work which is normally done by the surveyors and planning assistants, the said rules cannot be said to be legal and proper and, therefore, we hereby strike down the said rules. It would also not be proper to promote surveyors having non-technical qualifications to the post of planning assistants as without the special technical knowledge, such promotees would not be in a position to perform duties as planning assistants.
[Para 17]
We are of the view that the impugned rules cannot be held to be legal, looking to the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that the appointments made by respondent No. 2 under the Surveyors Rule should not be set aside. Respondents No. 3 to 8 were appointed in 1982 and they have been performing their duties since long. Looking to the fact that a substantially long period of about 16 years has elapsed, we do not think it proper to quash and set aside their appointments as surveyors. Setting aside their appointments surveyors would put them to great difficulties because most of them might have crossed maximum age limit for appointment to any other post and if their services are terminated, they would be rendered jobless and would not have sufficient chances to get appointment elsewhere. Moreover, as the candidates were taken from the department, some of them might have also retired. Quashing and setting aside appointments of respondents No. 3 to 8 would thus put the said respondents to much inconvenience and as they have worked for a long period of 16 years in the cadre of surveyor and even prior thereto in the same department, we do not think it just and proper to quash and set aside the appointments.
[Para 19]
( 1 ) THE petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer that rule 3 (b) (ii) of the Surveyor (Town Planning and Valuation Department) recruitment Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Surveyors Rules) and Rule 3 (b) (iii) of the Planning Assistant (Town Planning and Valuation Department) recruitment Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Planning Assistants Rules) be struck down and selection for the post of surveyors made on 15-12-1981 and 3- 3-1982, in pursuance of the Surveyors Rules referred to hereinabove, be quashed and set aside. For the sake of convenience, the above-referred Rules have been reproduced below : rule 3 (b) (ii) of the Surveyors Rules :"a Bachelors Degree in Arts, in Geography, Sociology, Economics or Statistics, or a Bachelors Degree in Law of a recognised University or an institution or a qualification equivalent thereto recognised by the Government. "rule 3 (b) (iii) of the Planning Assistants Rules :"masters Degree in Arts, in Geography, Sociology, Economics, or Statistics or masters Degree in Law of a recognised University or an institution or a qualification equivalent thereto recognised by the Government with two years practical experience in town planning, joined after obtaining the qualification specified in this sub-clause. "
( 2 ) LEARNED Advocate Mrs. K. A. Mehta appearing for the petitioners has submitted the facts which are as under :
( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Government wanted to fill up certain posts in the cadre of Surveyors and therefore, without issuance of any public advertisement or without inviting any applications from any source, respondent No. 2 appointed respondent nos. 3 to 8 as Surveyors in Town Planning Department which is under Panchayat housing and Urban Development Department of the State of Gujarat. It has been submitted by Mrs. Mehta that Rule 3 (b) (ii) of the Surveyors Rules provides for qualifications for the post and the qualifications prescribed therein have nothing to do with the nature of work to be done by the surveyors and therefore, the said Rule should be struck down.
( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate Mrs. Mehta has submitted that as per Rule 3 (b) (ii) of the rules, a candidate having a Bachelors Degree in Arts, in Geography, Sociology, economics or Statistics or a Bachelors Degree in Law of a recognised University or an institution or qualification equivalent thereto recognised by the Government can be appointed as a surveyor provided other conditions mentioned in the Surveyors rules are fulfilled. It has also been submitted that the surveyors are concerned with measurement, valuation and survey of land and preparation of plans etc. Thus, the work to be done by the surveyors is technical in nature. At times they have to appear as witnesses as experts on the technical subject before the Court. For the purposes referred to hereinabove lands and/or superstructures are to be inspected, measured or valued. Nature of construction, material used in the construction and other relevant factors are to be considered by them and ultimately value of the land and the building is to be ascertained. They have also to prepare plans and therefore, they should have sufficient knowledge in the field of engineering or architecture. It has been, therefore, submitted that qualification with regard to graduation in Arts with Geography, sociology, Economics or Statistics as subjects or Law has nothing to do with the nature of work which is to be done by the surveyors. It has been submitted that as per provision of Rule 3 (b) (i) of the Surveyors Rules, a candidate should possess "a diploma in architecture or in civil engineering of recognised University or institution or its equivalent qualification recognised by the Government" and the said qualifications are the really useful and necessary qualifications which a candidate must possess for the purpose of performing duties which a surveyor is required to perform. According to the petitioners, relevant qualification wh