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
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additional affidavit is permitted to be withdrawn from the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
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.
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
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
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
