KANUBHAI BABUBHAI PATEL Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD BARODA
LAWS(GJH)-1988-4-24
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on April 15,1988

KANUBHAI BABUBHAI PATEL Appellant
VERSUS
Gujarat Electricity Board Baroda Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

AHMEDABAD MFG. AND CALICO PRINTING CO. LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
RAM SARUP VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
DALBIR SINOH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
AMBICA QUARRY WORKS AMBALAL MANIBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

JITENDRA JINABHAI MAKWANA VS. DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION COMMITTEE BHAVNAGAR [LAWS(GJH)-1991-10-10] [DISTINGUISHED]


JUDGEMENT

A.P.RAVANI - (1.)Does the Supreme Court say that at the time of promotion of an employee is lacking in qualification regarding experience for requisite years his promotion to the higher post should be regularized if while serving on the higher post he acquires the experience required for fulfilling the eligibility criterion ? How a decision of the Supreme Court is to be read and understood ? Are the observations made by the Supreme Court to be applied generally in all cases or are they required to be restricted to the context in which they are made ? These are some of the questions which arise in this petition in the background of the facts that follow.
(2.)The petitioner challenges the order of his reversion from the post of meter tester to the post of helper. In response to the advertisement for the post of meter tester the petitioner applied for the same. On the date of interview the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualifications for the post of meter tester. The requisite qualifications required for the post of meter tester were:
(1) the candidate should have passed S. S. C. examination; and

(2) he should have passed Second Class Wireman examination and should have five years experience of meter testing. OR he should have passed First Class Supervisors Examination and should possess three years experience of meter testing.
The petitioner had passed Second Class Wireman examination but had not completed five years experience of meter testing on the date of interview. However the petitioner had three years experience of meter testing when be appeared at the interview. At the relevant time the petitioner had appeared at the First Class Supervisors examination and he was awaiting the result thereof. Therefore he was allowed to appear at the interview on the condition that he should produce the certificate of passing the First Class Supervisors examination as and when the result is declared. On this basis the petitioner was promoted to the post of meter tester purely on temporary basis as per the order dated 4/02/1987 It appears that the petitioner failed at the examination and till 18/03/1988 (when the petitioner has been served with a memo/show-cause notice) he has not produced the certificate of having passed the First Class Supervisors examination. Hence the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why he should not be reverted to his original post of helper. In reply the petitioner admitted that he had not passed the First Class Supervisors examination. However he contended that in Sabarmati Circle some other helpers who have been promoted to the post of meter tester have still not passed the First Class Supervisors examination and according to the petitioner they had not completed five years experience. Yet they are retained on the post of meter tester. Therefore be prayed that his appointment to the post of meter tester be regularized.
(3.)It is an admitted position that the order of reversion has still not been served upon the petitioner. The petitioner has received information that the order of reversion is passed and he apprehends that the order may be served upon him at any time. In this view of the matter on the short ground alone namely that till today do cause of action has arisen because the petition is filed against apprehended action of reversion the petition is liable to be rejected. However the petition is not disposed of on this ground since the learned Counsel for the petitioner has been heard on merits of the matter.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.