SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 405

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, PRANAV TRIVEDI, JJ.
Rasendru S. Parekh & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Lalubha B. Jadeja & ors. – Respondents
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1977 of 2004 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2987 of 1988 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1979 of 2004 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3341 of 1988 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2581 of 2004 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3341 of 1988 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2014 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2582 of 2004 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2987 of 1988 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 13 of 2005 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 14 of 2005 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2 of 2014 In R/LETTERS
Decided on : 01-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. B.P.TANNA
For the Respondent: MR. ROHAN SHAH, MR AR THACKER, MS VYOMA K JHAVERI

Headnote:

Appointment - Municipal Corporation Act - Sections 454, 457, 59, 45-60, 51, 53 - The court discussed the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, particularly Sections 454 and 457 thereof read with Sections 59 and Sections 45 to 60 thereof. Sections 51 and 53 were also appreciated and the court found that the powers to appoint Officers and Servants of the Corporation vests in the Corporation. The Standing Committee is empowered to determine the number, the designations, the grades and salaries. The court held that the decision of the Standing Committee to alter the decision of the General Body of the Corporation by the Resolution dated 25.05.1986 was contrary to law and in fact held to be without authority of law.

Fact of the Case:

The original petitioner sought to quash the promotions of the private appellants to the post of Octroi Valuation Officers, alleging that they did not possess the required qualifications. The Corporation contended that the promotions were in accordance with the law.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the promotions of the private appellants were contrary to law and without authority. It directed their demotion to the posts of Junior Clerks and ordered that the post of Valuation Officer be filled in accordance with the law. The prayer for retrospective promotion of the petitioner with consequential benefits was rejected.

Issues: The main issue was whether the promotions of the private appellants to the post of Octroi Valuation Officers were in accordance with the law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision of the Standing Committee to alter the decision of the General Body of the Corporation by the Resolution dated 25.05.1986 was contrary to law and without authority. It also found that the Corporation had no authority in law to promote the private appellants.

Final Decision: The court quashed the promotions of the private appellants, directed their demotion to the posts of Junior Clerks, and ordered the Corporation to re-fix the pay of the original petitioner and grant him consequential benefits as if he was promoted to the post of Valuation Officer from the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2014.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant.

Considering the averments made in the application, prayer in terms of paragraph 5(b) is granted. The delay of 1436 days that has occurred in bringing legal heirs on record is hereby condoned. Civil application is allowed accordingly.

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2014

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant.

Having considered the averments made in the application, prayers in terms of para 5(b) is granted. Registry to amend the cause title of the main appeal, accordingly. Civil Application is allowed, accordingly.

ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEALS

1. These appeals have been filed by the original respondents No.2 and 3 (private respondents) and the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, original respondent No.1 in Special Civil Application Nos. 2987 of 1988 and 3341 of 1988. They challenged the oral judgment dated 15.09.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge which partly allowed the petitions of the original petitioner in the petition, namely, Shri Lalubha Bahadursinh Jadeja.

2 Lalubha Bahadursinh Jadeja, the sole petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 2987 of 1988, approached this Court by way of the captioned petition with a prayer that a writ be issued for quashing and setting aside the orders promoting the private appellants herein who were the original respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the petition to the post of Octroi Valuation Officer.

2.1 It was his case that he was initially recruited as a daily wager, Clerk on 23.11.1976 and confirmed as Junior Clerk with effect from 01.04.1983. It was his case that he has passed his L.S.G.D Examination. According to the petitioner, though he was qualified and eligible for being promoted as a Valuation Officer in the grade of 500-930/-, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted as Octroi Valuation Officers by the Commissioner.

2.2 According to the petitioner, the General Board on 04.02.1986, had sanctioned two posts of Octroi Valuation Officers in the pay-scale of Rs.500-930/-. The qualification prescribed for the said post was that of graduation in Engineering, Science or Commerce with L.L.B. It was the case of the original petitioner before the learned Single Judge that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted as Octroi Valuation Officers though, they neither possessed the qualification of graduation in Engineering, Science or Commerce with L.L.B, instead the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were Arts Graduate.

2.3 According to the petitioner, therefore, the promotion of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was contrary to the rules and therefore the same be quashed and set aside.

2.4 The Corporation filed its reply before the learned Single Judge contending that the promotions were in accordance with law. However, it was an admitted fact that the petitioner was in the seniority list at serial no. 95 whereas the private respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were at serial nos. 107 and 117 respectively. According to the Corporation, since a criminal case was pending against the original petitioner, he was considered for promotion but not promoted and since the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were found suitable for promotion, were promoted to the posts in question.

2.5 Perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge would indicate that the learned Single Judge considered the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, particularly Sections 454 and 457 thereof read with Sections 59 and Sections 45 to 60 thereof. Sections 51 and 53 were also appreciated and the learned Single Judge on perusal of the provisions found that the powers to appoint Officers and Servants of the Corporation vests in the Corporation. The Standing Committee is empowered to determine the number, the designations, the grades and salaries. According to the learned Single Judge, neither Sec.51 nor Sec.53 of the Act empowered the Standing Committee to determine the qualifications required to be possessed by the Officers and Servants

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top