Gujarat High Court
Rajeshkumar Gunvatbhai Pandya vs Commissioner Junagadh Municipal ... on 17 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6836/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6836 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAJESHKUMAR GUNVATBHAI PANDYA & ORS.
Versus
COMMISSIONER JUNAGADH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASIT B JOSHI(2567) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 17/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed for the following prayers:
"7(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate, writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dtd.01.01.2008 passed by the respondent and further be pleased to direct the respondent to continue the petitioner on the post of Checking Inspector and draw the salary of the post of Checking Inspector, since the order reverting the petitioner as driver is quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 19 00:01:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6836/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined order dtd. 09.01.2008 passed by respondent and further be pleased to direct the respondent to continue the petitioner on the post of Checking Inspector and draw the salary of post of Checking Inspector, since the order reverting the petitioner as driver is quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;
(C) xxxx"
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Joshi for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for the respondent.
3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, upon instructions, submits that he is not pressing the additional affidavit filed at page no.166 dated 6.8.2025 and seeks permission to withdraw the same from the record as the same is filed in misconception. Permission is granted. The additional affidavit is permitted to be withdrawn from the record.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi has submitted that in view of the earlier order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.6732 of 2003 dated 27.7.2007, written representation is made to the respondent authority along with th the 12 standard as well as Fy.B.Com. Marksheet to show that the petitioner is eligible for the post of Checking Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 19 00:01:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6836/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined Inspector. He has submitted that thereafter by the impugned order dated 9.1.2008, though the petitioner is having qualification for the post of Checking Inspector, it is held that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that the petitioner is undergraduate. The respondent has also held that the petitioner is having experience of 8 months and therefore the petitioner is not having any qualification of Checking Inspector though in fact the petitioner has given th the marksheet of 12 as well as Fy.B.Com. and in the eligibility criteria, no minimum period of experience is provided. Therefore, he has submitted that the impugned action of the respondent is totally without considering the material available on the record, apparently illegal, unjust, improper and not tenable in the eye of law and therefore required to be set aside.
5. He further submitted that during the pendency of the proceeding, the petitioner has expired and therefore there is no question of any specific relief qua the petitioner himself consequent to the order passed by this Court. He has further submitted that the family members who are now pursuing the petition are the heirs of the original petitioner and they can certainly pray for the necessary benefits at appropriate stage, if the prayers in the present petition are allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order. Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 19 00:01:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6836/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw has referred to the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that the President of Nagarpalika has no authority to pass any order regarding the certificates about the present petitioner as in the year 2003, the city bus service of Junagadh is given to the private party and therefore such prayers cannot be accepted. He further submitted by supporting the impugned order passed that the petitioner is not having requisite qualification and therefore deserves to be dismissed as the authorities have not committed any error in law.
7. I have considering the rival submissions made at the bar and also perused the material placed on record.
8. The impugned order dated 9.1.2008 by which the promotion of the original petitioner as Checking Inspector is not considered on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that he is having necessary requisite qualification as he has not produced any document to show that he has cleared ATKT examination. Further, it is also mentioned that the petitioner is having only 8 months experience as a driver and therefore on 17.12.1997, he was promoted as Checking Inspector and as he is not holding requisite experience as indicated in the impugned order and Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 19 00:01:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6836/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined therefore the case of the petitioner is not considered. However, while perusing the necessary material available on the record, it transpires that in the process of recruitment, there is no requirement of any experience. The only requirement that the petitioner should have for the Checking Inspector is a graduation/under graduation and it is only mentioned is that a person who is having experience in transport service will be given preference but there is no specific requirement about the experience.
9. Considering the same, the decision taken is contrary. It transpires that the respondent authorities are trying to justify their improper and illegal action by giving such vague explanation. It is undisputed that the petitioner th has passed 12 standard and studying in Fy.B.Com., which itself shows that he is pursuing graduation course. The Oxford dictionary describes the word graduate as "to confer a degree or diploma upon at the close of a course of study, as in a University, College or School." Otherwise also, any person having minimum understanding about the basic requirement can understand that when the person is pursuing the course of first year B.Com, and such documents are available on the record, then certainly he should be considered as undergraduate. Further, when there is no requirement of experience of specific period for the post, the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 19 00:01:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6836/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined authority has committed error in mentioning that the petitioner is having only 8 months experience. Therefore, on both the counts, the impugned communication is found erroneous and the impugned order is nothing but abuse of powers vested in the respondent authority by not properly considering and appreciating the material placed on record and deciding the case of the petitioner as per whims and wishes of the said concerned officer. The reasons assigned in the said communication by the concerned officer should be treated as ipsit dixit. In any case, the impugned communication dated 9.1.2008 is not tenable in the eye of law and required to be interfered with Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it is clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
10. In view of the above, this petition is required to be allowed. Accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 9.1.2008 is quashed and set aside by considering the prayers in terms of paragraph 7(A) of the petition. It is further clarified that since the impugned order is now quashed and set aside, it is open for the heirs of the original petitioner to pursue their claim available in proper manner at appropriate stage. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 19 00:01:39 IST 2025