R D PARMAR Vs. AHMEDABAD DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
AHMEDABAD DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Instructor in a cotton weaving school run by the Ahmedabad District Panchayat (first respondent) at village Ranoda Taluka Dholka District Ahmedabad. The appointment was made on December 1 1975 and the petitioner joined duty on December 2 1975 The appointment was made by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies Ahmedabad District Panchayat on a purely temporary basis and the appointment was initially for a period of three months or until a candidate selected by the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) became available whichever event occurred earlier. The appointment made accordingly was continued from time to time on the same terms and conditions till by an order made on May 4 1978 (AnnexureA) the petitioners services were terminated and the fourth respondent was appointed to the post held by the petitioner as a candidate duly selected by the Board. It is this order terminating the services of the petitioner which is challenged in the present proceeding.
(2.) The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that though the petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis the appointment was made to a post which was sanctioned by the State Government under the power vested in it under the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that if the appointment order was read as a whole it became clear that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated arbitrarily and that they could have been terminated only if a duly qualified candidate selected by the Board became available or on any other valid grounds such as abolition of post or administrative exigency or even by way of a penal action. In the instant case proceeded the argument the torment on was on the sole ground that a duly qualified candidate selected by the Board namely the fourth respondent was available. The fourth respondent could not however be said to have been property and validly selected by the Board for though Rule 3 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selections Board (Functions) Rules 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) clearly provides that selection to the post in question which is one of the posts mentioned in the Schedule annexed to the Rules could have been made by direct recruitment only after inviting applications by announcing in as many newspapers as considered necessary by the Board no such advertisement was issued prior to the selection of the fourth respondent and that therefore the selection being contrary to statutory rules was invalid.
(3.) On behalf of the first respondent Mr. V.M. Pathak Assistant District Registrar of Co-operative Societies has filed an affidavit-in-reply. In para 2 of the said affidavit it has been stated that the services of the petitioner were terminated and appointment of the fourth respondent was made to the post in question on account of a communication received from the Board on April 28 1978 informing that the B3ard had selected the fourth respondent for the said post. It is thus an undisputed fact that the only ground on which the petitioners services have come to be terminated is that a candidate selected by the Board was available to fill the post.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.