SCA/29016/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 29016 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== JUNAGADH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES UNION Versus COMMISSIONER- JUNAGADH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & others ====================================== Appearance : Ms. Sangita Pahwa for M/s. Thakkar Associates for the petitioner Mr. Yogesh S. Lakhani for the respondents ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 23/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/29016/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT The basis prayer of the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to direct the respondent-Corporation to pass reasoned orders for considering the objections filed by the petitioner-union against the seniority list and further be pleased to direct to give effect of such objections which are accepted and rejected by the Corporation in the final seniority list. On earlier occasion, when the petitioner approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.20751 of 2006, this Court, by order dated 29.9.2006, observed in paragraphs 2 and 3 as under: “2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Corporation has prepared the provision seniority list in respect of daily-rated/ regular employees. Objections were invited by the Corporation. The petitioner has filed objections before the Corporation against the provisional seniority list. Learned advocate Ms. Vinayak submitted that the objections were filed on 30.3.2005, but so far, the Corporation has not prepared the final seniority list and not considered the objections raised by the petitioner. Due to this inaction on the part of the respondent Corporation, number of persons who are in the seniority list have been promoted and juniors were also promoted by the respondent Corporation. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is directed to the respondent Corporation to decide the objections raised by the petitioner dated 30.3.2005 and also consider the objections received by the Corporation and prepare the final seniority list after considering all the objections within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving the copy of the this order. Meantime, it is hoped that the respondent Corporation will not implement the provisional seniority list and no hasty steps may be taken, which may adversely affect, in future, to the rights of any employee. “ Even while issuing the notice in this petition, the Court has recorded as under: SCA/29016/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT “Mrs. Pahwa, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the way in which the seniority list purported to be the final one and has been finalized and published it seems that the objections raised by the petitioner – Union have not been addressed. So as to find out as to whether the respondent – Corporation complied with the directions of this Court to consider the objections of the Union – employees while finalizing the seniority list, issue Notice returnable on 10th December, 2007.” In the considered opinion of this Court, this petition cannot be entertained for execution of the earlier order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.20751 of 2006. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since respondent No.1 is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is maintainable, is devoid of any merit since, ultimately, the prayer is to seek direction to the respondents to implement the earlier order passed by the Court, which remains non-complied with. In view of the above, this petition stands rejected. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. (ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy)