Gujarat High Court
Mahendrakumar Shankarlal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 1 September, 2003
Author: P.B.Majmudar
Bench: P.B.Majmudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 10003 of 2003
with
Civil Application No.5579 of 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAHENDRAKUMAR SHANKARLAL PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR PARESH UPADHYAY for the Petitioner.
Mr.Pandya, Assistant GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
for Respondent No. 1-2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent No. 3
MR CB DASTOOR for Respondent No. 4-6
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR
Date of Order: 01/09/2003
ORAL ORDER
Rule returnable on 1st October, 2003. Mr.Pandya, learned AGP, waives service of rule on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Dastoor waives service of rule on behalf of respondents 4 to 6.
As regards interim relief, Mr.Upadhyay vehemently argued that the ad interim relief granted earlier is required to be confirmed till the matter is finally heard by this Court. It is required to be noted that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk in Banaskantha District in the year 1989. Subsequently, when new Patan District was established, certain government employees, either on their own request or compulsorily, were transferred to the newly constituted Patan District. At page 13 of the compilation, names of the employees, who were under the order of transfer to Patan, are mentioned. At that stage, the petitioner requested to transfer him at Patan. However, his request was not accepted by the Department at that time.
The petitioner thereafter started making various HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Fri Sep 16 00:55:43 IST 2016 representations to the Government, asking the Government to allow him to opt for Patan District, since Patan is his native place. Subsequently, the Government accepted the said request of the petitioner and in view of the request of the petitioner, he was transferred to Patan by an order dated 1st May, 1999. At the time of his transfer, the petitioner also gave an undertaking that he has no objection if he is treated as the junior-most at Patan District.
Now, by way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the action of the Government in not accepting the option in the year 1998, is not correct and that his juniors were given benefit by accepting their option and at that time, the request of the petitioner was not considered. It is submitted by Mr.Upadhyay that, though in the said list, his name is appearing at Serial No.92, actually, it should have been placed higher up and for that purpose, the seniority was required to be protected, i.e., his seniority on the basis of his original appointment in Banaskantha District in the year 1989. It is, therefore, argued that the Collector may be restrained from operating the said list, which is prepared by him and which is in existence as on today. Mr.Upadhyay has also relied upon the averments made in paragraph 3.5 of the petition.
I have heard Mr.Upadhyay at length so far as the question of interim relief is concerned. It is required to be noted that, in the year 1998, certain employees, including the present respondents 4 to 6, were transferred to Patan. At that time, the petitioner never protested the same by filing any proceedings before the Court. It is an admitted fact that respondents 4 to 6 were transferred to Patan District earlier in point of time as compared to the present petitioner. The petitioner thereafter gave an undertaking to the Government that he is ready to be treated as junior-most at Patan District and on his own request, he was transferred to Patan District in view of the said undertaking. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in my view, this is not a case in which interim relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, can be granted, and the Collector is required to be permitted to prepare the list, which he has prepared. The said seniority list, which is in existence as on today, cannot be disturbed or stayed by way of interim relief. It is required to be noted that, ultimately, if the petition of the petitioner is allowed, he can always be given benefit of deemed date of promotion and all other consequential reliefs, and, in that view of the matter, the reversion order, if any, can always be treated as subject to the HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Fri Sep 16 00:55:43 IST 2016 result of this petition. At present, I do not find any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner for getting any interim relief.
In view of what is stated above, the interim relief granted against the reversion of the petitioner is vacated. It is, however, directed that the reversion of the petitioner, if any, shall be subject to the result of this petition. Ad interim relief granted earlier is accordingly modified. The Collector is permitted to operate the said list, which is in existence as on today.
Office may notify this matter on a separate final hearing board on 1st October, 2003.
So far as Civil Applicaiton No.5579 of 2003 is concerned, the same shall be heard with the main matter.
1st September, 2003( P.B. Majmudar, J. ) *** (apj) HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Fri Sep 16 00:55:43 IST 2016