GHELABHAI POPATBHAI TARPARA Vs. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE KALAVAD
LAWS(GJH)-1988-4-12
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on April 28,1988

GHELABHAI POPATBHAI TARPARA Appellant
VERSUS
Agricultural Produce Market Committee Kalavad Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BHAVENDRA H PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1996-12-8] [REFERRED]
ARVINDBHAI MULUBHAI BHUTAIYA VS. AMRELI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1998-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
BACHUBHAI ALIAS BHAGATSING SABHAJITSING THAKOR VS. SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2003-12-43] [REFERRED]
BHAVENDRA H PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM MOHD VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-1993-10-12] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

A.P.RAVANI - (1.)Petitioner; are Gate Clerks working with respondent No. 1 Committee who were appointed on ad hoc and temporary basis. Their services are terminated since the appointment on the post is to be made in accordance with the provisions of Recruitment Rules. Petitioners challenge the order of termination and in substance claim Deny entry to all others who may stand in queue seeking entry through regular gate and protect our occupation of the seat which we have occupied without going through selection process. Can such a claim be entertained in a petition under Art. 226 be the Constitution of India ? Shorn of all verbosity and legal niceties this in short is the question to be examined in these petitions.
1/A. As common questions of law and facts arise at the request of and with the consent of the parties all the three petitions are being disposed of by common judgment and order.

(2.)Each of the petitioner has been appointed as Gate Clerk on ad hoc basis by respondent No. 1 Agricultural Produce Market Committee Kalavad (hereinafter referred to as the Committee. Sometime in the year 1981-82 there was audit obJection pointing out that respondent No. 1 Committee should have adopted the procedure for Gate Pass. Hence respondent No. 1-Committee made proposal for increasing its sanctioned establishment and recommended that four posts of Gate Clerks be created and two posts of Watchman be created. Pending the approval of the proposal by the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance Gandhinagar (respondent No. 1 here-in) the Committee made appointments of Gate Clerks purely on ad hoc and temporary basis and that too for a period of 29 day. The relevant orders are produced at Annexure G/1 G/2 and G/J and they are dated: July 12 19/03/1984 and 15/12/1983 Respondent No. 2 the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as the Director) sanctioned the proposal for increasing the staff by his letter dated: 17/06/1986 (Annexure H). In this letter it has been clearly mentioned that the appointment should be in accordance with Rules and Regulations and for the previous appointments made by the Committee it anything unlawful is found the responsibility will be that of the Committee. However the Committee resolved by passing Resolution dated: 18/07/1987 to make each of the petitioner permanent. This was done after taking legal advise. Respondent No. 3 herein has filed a suit in Civil Court and has challenged this Resolution. Respondent No. 2 the Director informed the Chairman of the Committee by his letter dated: 11/08/1987 that the appointments should be in accordance with Recruitment Rules framed and sanctioned under by-law No. 60. It was further informed that the recruitment will be considered lawful only if the same is made in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and it was stated that the recruitment made in haphazard manner shall be considered irregular and unlawful. Therefore the employees who might have been recruited in that manner and in excess of the sanctioned staff would be required to be relieved immediately. In the letter it was specifically mentioned that if any liability arises on that count the members of the Committee shall be responsible for the same.
(3.)Thereafter the Committee passed Resolution in its meeting held on 26/08/1987 and decided to terminate the services of the petitioners. Notice of termination of service dated: 29/08/1987 has been served upon each of the petitioner. The petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the Resolution terminating their services and have also challenged to legality and validity of the notice both of which are produced at Annexure A and Annexure B respectively. (Annexure referred to herein are of Special C. A. No. 4385 of 1987. However it is stated the Bar that Annexure produced in all the petitions are almost identical and there is no substantial difference in factual position.)
;


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