Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Manoj Nagardas Panchhiwala vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 2003

Dineshbhai G Chavda & 7 vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 19 February, 2014

21.1 In the instant case, evidently, the orders of appointment have been issued by the President of respondent-Municipality, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The principle rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Manoj Nagardas Panchhiwala's case (supra) would squarely apply to the present case since the appointment of the appellants herein is found to be made by an officer not authorized to issue the orders of appointment. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent-Collector has not committed any error or illegality in quashing and setting aside the Resolutions no.1 to 4 dated 06.10.1996 of the Selection Committee.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Karamsad Municipality Through Chief ... vs Amratbhai Mohanbhai Harijan on 1 April, 2013

6. An attempt was made by learned counsel Mr.Sanchela, appearing for the appellant, to contend that as per the view taken by this Court in case of Manoj Nagardas Panchhwala v. State of Gujarat reported at 2004 (1) G.L.R.846, President of the Nagarpalika or its General Body had no power or jurisdiction to offer appointment and, therefore, it was submitted that decision of the General Body would be rendered illegal. Had it been the case where challenge to the said decision was by the party other than an officer of the Municipality, it might stand on a different footing. But, in the present case, such challenge comes from the mouth of the Chief Officer, who is an officer of the Municipality. Further, the resolution of the General Body for absorption on permanent basis is acted upon since 2001 and all the original petitioners are continuing in service since then. Such being the different fact-situation, the said decision is of no help to the appellant.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - J Patel - Full Document

Dashrathbhai B. Jadav & vs Petlad Nagar Palika & 2 on 6 September, 2017

3. Per   contra,   learned   advocate   Mr.Shah  has  Page 2 of 6 HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Sun Oct 01 15:57:01 IST 2017 C/SCA/5541/2006 JUDGMENT submitted   that   the   orders   appointing   the  petitioners   as   drivers   are   without   any  authority of law since the same are passed by  the President of Petlad Nagar Palika whereas  the   orders   of   reverting   and   appointing   the  petitioners on the post of Safai Kamdars are  passed by the Chief Officer of the respondent  Nagar   Palika.   Reliance   is   placed   on   the  judgment of the Division Bench of this court  rendered   in   the   case   of   Manoj   Nagardas  Panchhiwala   v.   State   of   Gujarat   and   Ors.,  2006 (1) GLR 846, for the proposition of law  that   if   the   person   concerned   who   had   no  authority or power make the appointment, then  nobody   can   claim   right   to   be   continued   in  service.  In   that   view   of   the   matter,   the  learned   advocate   for   the   respondent   has  stated   that   the   impugned   order   does   not  require any interference by this court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Mahendrabhai vs State on 27 December, 2011

2 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record and the impugned order dated 1.11.2011, it transpires that the President of the Municipality has passed an order to the extent that the charge of the post of Clerk is to be handed over to another Clerk and the petitioner is directed to perform duties as Recovery Personnel in the Recovery Branch of the Municipality. In the context of the aforementioned facts, grievances were also raised before the District Collector, Anand and the Director of Municipalities, State of Gujarat. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, in a matter of taking over charge by another colleague of similar post and the instruction given to the petitioner to perform duties as Recovery Personnel in the Recovery Branch of the Municipality, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any illegality in passing the impugned order warranting any interference by this Court. So far as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Manoj Nagardas Panchhiwala vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2004 (1) GLR 846, is concerned, it was pertaining to the power of the President of the Municipality to appoint an employee and, for good earthly reasons, if the President of the Municipality has thought it fit to direct the petitioner to perform the duties in a different department of the Municipality, it cannot be said to be in any manner illegal.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document
1