BHAVESH RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH PATEL Vs. RAJULA NAGAR PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr Vyas for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr Desai for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3, though served with the notice of Rule, is not represented by anyone.

(2.) The petitioner came to be appointed as a Peon on 13.4.1989 by respondent No.1. As per his case, he was made permanent on 7.3.1990 by a resolution. The said order was examined by DDO and having found it to be not sustainable, was set aside by order dated 22.4.1991. The said order of DDO came to be challenged by preferring Special Civil Application No.3124 of 1991 by the affected parties, which includes the petitioner. By virtue of a direction given in that Special Civil Application, the DDO passed another order on 8.6.1992 on the same lines. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court with the present petition being Special Civil Application No.3897 of 1993. By virtue of order dated 26.9.1994, the petitioner is still continued in service.

(3.) On behalf of respondent No.1, Administrator Mr LM Parmar, has filed affidavit-in-reply wherein it is contended that the petitioner was not selected by the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee nor was he recommended by Employment Exchange. The petitioner has suppressed these two material facts. It is further contended in the reply that there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, which he has not resorted to and, therefore, this petition may not be entertained. It is also contended that disputed questions of fact arise for adjudication of rights of the parties and, therefore also the petition may not be entertained. It is specifically averred in the affidavit-in-reply that Special Civil Application No.3124 of 1991 was preferred by 35 employees including the petitioner. Lastly, it is contended that the order of 1992 is passed after hearing the parties concerned including the petitioner.