V.H.BHAIRAVIA - (1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners sought permission to file this petition in representative capacity challenging the process of selection for all the posts in pursuace to the circular at Annexure C of the respondent Municipal Corporation and this Court by its order dated 29.12.1989 has passed the following order. Interim relief granted earlier by order dated August 23 1989 and as modified by order dated October 20 1989 shall remain in operation upto January 31 1990 Meanwhile it will be open to the petitioners to request the Court for granting permission to pursue the petition in representative capacity as provided under Order I Rule 8 of the C.P. Code. It seems that the petitioners were ordered to issue notice under Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. As the petitioner wanted such a relief if granted would have been affected the candidates who were selected pursuant to the interview and selection made by the respondent Corporation. Though ad-interim relief as regards appointment was granted the petitioner did not carry out the order of this Court and have not issued public notice under Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code nor the petitioners have joined all the affected parties in the petition. The Supreme Court in the case of Diwakar Shrivastava and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in A.I.R. 1994 SC 468 has observed as under: The question of the legality or validity of the relaxation granted in favour of the candidates cannot possibly be decided in their absence. Rules of natural justice apply as much to proceedings in Courts of law as to proceedings before authorities elsewhere. It may be that where a general question is involved and a large number of persons are concerned the Court may in appropriate cases permit a new of them to be sued in a representative capacity or may consider them as sufficiently represented by a few who have been properly impleaded as parties.
(2.) In view of this clear legal position the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable in the instant case. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any relief sought in this petition. Hence the petition is dismissed.
(3.) Al this stage Mr. Padiwal makes a request that the petitioners are ready to comply with the order passed by this Court and we ready to issue notice under Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case now it will not be fair to allow the petitioners after four years to follow the procedure. The order was passed on 29.12.1989. Four years have passed. The petitioners did not comply with the order during this period. Not only that but pending the petition interim order which was operating against the implementation of the selection list and the candidates who were eligible and qualified for the appointment could not be appointed on the vacancies and they have suffered a lot without any fault on their part. It has been pointed out that the petitioner has enrolled himself as an advocate with the Bar Council of Gujarat. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not considered for the post of clerk in pursuance to the advertisement issued in May 1984 It is pointed to note here that the petitioner who was not called for interview in 1984 has suddenly waken up and filed this petition in 1989 challenging the subsequent circular Annexure C on the ground that the respondent cannot fill up the post of junior clerk without giving advertisement. It is not open for the petitioner to challenge the mode of recruitment. The respondent Corporation is an autonomous body governed under B.P.M.C. Act competent to adept the method of recruitment which may not be against public policy. In the instant case the circular in question is one sort of method adopted by the respondent Corporation purported to give some benefit to the dependents of class III and IV servants who are working in the respondent Corporation mostly belonging to poor and backward class having regard to their unprivileged social and economic circumstances. The petitioner has raised a grievance against this power of the respondent Corporation. The petitioner who was not considered for the post of Junior clerk in 1984 and now he is making a hue and cry for not selecting him on the post and creating hindrances against the mode of recruitment adopted by the respondent Corporation. However without going into all these aspects it is held that the petitioner has no right to challenge this circular......and the appointment pursuant to the circular in the representative capacity. In the result the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted by this Court stands vacated. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.;