Gujarat High Court
Dayalji Dhanjibhai Kanjariya vs Gujarat Ayurved University & on 29 April, 2016
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/4836/2003 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4836 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/
===================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the NO
fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation NO
of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
===================================================
DAYALJI DHANJIBHAI KANJARIYA....Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT AYURVED UNIVERSITY & 1....Respondent(s)
===================================================
Appearance:
MR JA ADESHRA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RC KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
===================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 29/04/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) (1) By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 28.01.2003 whereby the petitioner is reverted from the post of Stenographer (GradeII)cumP.A. to the Dean (payscale of Rs.14002600) to the post of Stenographer (GradeIII) (payscale of Rs.1200 2040).
Page 1 of 7
HC-NIC Page 1 of 7 Created On Wed May 04 03:48:13 IST 2016
C/SCA/4836/2003 JUDGMENT
(2) The facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued in the newspaper for appointment of Stenographer (GradeIII) in the respondent Gujarat Ayurved University. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner appeared and cleared the written test as well as the interview held by the Selection Committee. On 27.01.1987 the petitioner appointed as Stenographer (GradeIII), Gujarati, in the respondentUniversity in the payscale of Rs.350500.
(3) On 28.01.1987 the petitioner joined duty as Stenographer (GradeIII) in the Institute of Post Graduate Teaching & Research in Ayurved. Thereafter by Office Order dated 30.07.1987 the petitioner and others were granted revision of payscale of Rs.12002040 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 (4th Pay Commission) on two years probation. On 15/16.02.1989 service of the petitioner confirmed vide Office Order No.5954. On 16.04.1990 proposal was placed before the Standing Managing Committee by the respondent University for upgradation of the post of the petitioner from the post of Stenographer (GradeIII) to the post of Stenographer (Grade II)cumP.A. to Dean in the payscale of Rs.14002600, which came to be approved and minutes were accordingly drawn and thereafter on 04/07.01.1991 the said proposal was sent to Page 2 of 7 HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Wed May 04 03:48:13 IST 2016 C/SCA/4836/2003 JUDGMENT the Government of India. However, the Government of India raised one query to the effect that how the present incumbent (i.e. the present petitioner) of the post of Stenographer (GradeIII), which is proposed to be up gradated to Stenographer (GradeII)cumP.A. to Dean is to be adjusted.
(4) On 15.01.1991, pursuant to the aforesaid query of the Government of India, reply was forwarded by the Dean stating that the Stenographer working on GradeIII will be given extra work of P.A. to Dean and will be given promotion. On 28.01.1991 the Government of India granted approval of upgradation of the post of the petitioner as Stenographer (GradeII)cumP.A. to Dean. On 25.03.1991 representation was made by the petitioner for appointing him to the upgraded post.
(5) On 02.12.1993 the petitioner was asked to work as Stenographer (GradeII)cumP.A to Dean for the period from 02.12.1993 to 31.12.1997 i.e. four years. On 30.09.1995 the petitioner was sanctioned / approved Special Pay of Rs.140/ p.m. w.e.f. 02.12.1993 for the work done as per the aforesaid order dated 02.12.1993. Thereafter, on 04.05.1997, Special Pay earlier granted to the petitioner came to be discontinued but the petitioner was asked to Page 3 of 7 HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Wed May 04 03:48:13 IST 2016 C/SCA/4836/2003 JUDGMENT continue the same work of Stenographer Grade IIcumP.A. On 01.01.1998 the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer (GradeII)cumP.A. to Dean. Thereafter by the impugned revision order dated 28.01.2003 the petitioner was reverted from the post of Stenographer (Grade II)cumP.A. to Dean to the post of StenographerIII.
(6) Mr.J.A.Adeshra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the said order is a nonspeaking order, which was passed after five years and 27 days of appointment of the petitioner, and the same is passed without hearing the petitioner and, therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the order is passed without authority as the upgradation of the post of the petitioner as Stenographer GradeII was approved by Standing Managing Committee dated 16.04.1990, whereas the order of reversion is passed by the Syndicate. He also submitted that the post on which the petitioner was reverted has already been abolished and no one was appointed in place of the petitioner, who was working as Stenographer (GradeII)cum P.A. to the Dean. He further submitted that no sanction of the Government is obtained before taking such decision. He stated that on 09.02.2009 the petitioner was selected and Page 4 of 7 HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Wed May 04 03:48:13 IST 2016 C/SCA/4836/2003 JUDGMENT appointed as Office Superintendent (ClassII) as direct recruitee and the petitioner joined the duty accordingly.
(7) Mr.R.C.Kakkad, learned advocate appearing for the respondentUniversity, has defended the action of the Respondent authorities by stating that the petitioner did not possess the qualification of the post of Stenographer GradeII and the appointment order was also contrary to rules, hence the same was liable to be cancelled for want of competence. No further contention is raised.
(8) As stated above, Mr.J.A.Adeshra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has made various submissions for quashing and setting aside the impugned order. However, I am not dealing with the other submissions since prima facie I am satisfied that the impugned order is passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Moreover, the perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the same is an unreasoned order. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner also states that subsequently he is appointed as Office Superintendent (ClassII) on 09.02.2009.
(9) A specific contention to that effect is made by the petitioner in Paragraph No.3/J of the Page 5 of 7 HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Wed May 04 03:48:13 IST 2016 C/SCA/4836/2003 JUDGMENT petition. In so far as the said contention, the respondentUniversity has filed an affidavit inreply, particularly Paragraph No.4.11 stating that the impugned order being legal and according to the Rules and there is no requirement for intimating the same and the petitioner is not required to be heard on that regard. A perusal of the impugned Order dt. 28.01.2003 clearly indicates the petitioner is reverted on the ground that his appointment is de hors the rules. The impugned order is silent on the aspects of Rules and qualifications. Moreover, the Order dated 01.01.1998 granting ad hoc appointment bears a condition that in case the services of the petitioner are not found satisfactory, he will be reverted to the post. The Order also states about granting regular pay scale as per the norms of the State government. The petitioner was not given any opportunity before coming to the conclusion that his appointment was de hors the Rules and qualification. It is not the case of the Respondents that his services were not satisfactory. Subsequently, the petitioner is also appointed to the post of Office Superintendent (ClassII). It is settled law and in catena of decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court have observed that any order which imposes any disadvantage on the employee concerned whereby his payscale is reduced or Page 6 of 7 HC-NIC Page 6 of 7 Created On Wed May 04 03:48:13 IST 2016 C/SCA/4836/2003 JUDGMENT has been reverted an opportunity of hearing is required since denial of the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, impugned order is quashed for the reasons stated above. Necessary consequences shall follow. RespondentUniversity is directed to act accordingly and take decision on the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing before passing any orders. RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Sd/ [A.S. SUPEHIA, J] *** Bhavesh-[pps]* Page 7 of 7 HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Wed May 04 03:48:13 IST 2016