Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 772 (GUJ)

Dhirendra Kantilal Desai v. State of Gujarat

2011-11-18

K.S.JHAVERI

body2011
Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—The petitioners by way of filing the present petitions have prayed to quash and set aside the seniority list dated 06.09.1995 given effect from 30.09.1996 and have prayed to direct the Respondents No. 1 to 4 to prepare a fresh provisional seniority list in accordance with rules. 1.1 The petitioners have also prayed to quash and set aside the clarification dated 28.08.1973 issued by the respondent No. 1 and also to direct the respondents to maintain the ratio of 2:1 as provided under the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967 as far as the policy of the transfer from the post of Talati-cum-Mantri to the cadre of accounts is concerned. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that though the Respondents No. 5 to 33 are not qualified they are given the option for being included in the seniority list of Accounts Clerk. It is the case of the petitioners that the educational qualifications for being eligible to be selected as Clerk in the accounts Group IV were different from that of Clerk in a Common Clerical Cadre. 3. Mr. N.D. Buch, learned advocate appearing for Nanavaty Advocates for the petitioners submitted that persons having qualification of SSC with Mathematics as one of the subjects can only be appointed to the post of Accounts Clerks. He submitted that the seniority list is not prepared as per the amended rules. He submitted that the Respondents No. 5 to 33 do not possess the minimum qualification of passing SSC examination with Mathematics as one of the subjects and therefore even according to the notification which empowers the authorities to give the option is not followed. 4. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record. Mr. Buch, learned advocate for the petitioners was directed to place on record the objections raised by the petitioners against the provisional seniority list at the time it was published. Mr. Buch is not in a position to show the same from the records. He stated that it is not possible to place on record the same after almost a decade. 5. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this Court is of the view that in view of the fact that the petitioners have not objected to the provisional seniority list, it shall not be appropriate to entertain this petition. He stated that it is not possible to place on record the same after almost a decade. 5. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this Court is of the view that in view of the fact that the petitioners have not objected to the provisional seniority list, it shall not be appropriate to entertain this petition. The authority had published the provisional seniority list and it was the duty of the petitioners to bring to their notice at that very point of time itself if any discrepancies were found. However, in absence of any such objections received, the authority was just and proper in publishing the final seniority list. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to disturb the position which has been prevailing for these many years when no material evidence is placed on record. The learned advocate for the petitioners is not in a position to show that the authority has committed any illegality or irregularity in publishing the final seniority list. Hence no interference is called for by this court. 6. In the premises aforesaid, petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any stands vacated. No costs.