SCA/8217/1988 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8217 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.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 ? ========================================================= N P PATEL - Petitioner Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondents ========================================================= Appearance : MR MR ANAND for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR KRUNAL D PANDYA, AGP for Respondents ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date : 13/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner, in this petition, raises question on fixation of seniority of Deputy Mamlatdars on the basis of the date of passing of the Lower Revenue Qualifying Examination. Same question SCA/8217/1988 2/5 JUDGMENT was raised in Special Civil Application No. 3730/87 and various other matters. 2. The petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “15. On the grounds stated hereinabove and those that may be urged at the time of hearing, Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned seniority list at Annexure-A, inasmuch as the petitioner is concerned, and the impugned order/Legal Notice at Annexure-C, and to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring : (A) The first proviso to Rule 5 as illegal, unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. (B) That the petitioner has passed the L.R.Q.E. Within the prescribed chances, i.e. three chances. (C) the proviso to Rule 7 as illegal, unconstitutional, null, void and bad in law. (D) That the proviso to Rule 7 is laid down to mean that it is to be applied subject to the principle that a person with longer officiating service as a Deputy Mamlatdar will be senior to the junior with the shorter officiating service as a Deputy Mamlatdar. (E) That the petitioner will have all benefits of service including pay fixation, future SCA/8217/1988 3/5 JUDGMENT promotions on the basis that he has passed the examination within the prescribed chances and prescribed time limit. (F) To grant any other appropriate relief or remedy deem just and proper by Your Lordships including the costs of this petition.” 3. This Court, while admitting this petition, granted interim relief directing the respondents not to revert the petitioner from the post of Deputy Mamlatdar till those who passed Lower Revenue Qualifying Examination after the petitioner and were promoted later are retained on the posts of Deputy Mamlatdar. The Court observed that subject to this restriction, it would be open to the respondents to operate provisional seniority lists prepared by them for the purpose of reversion. The Court further observed that in respect of those who have passed the examination at the same time and were promoted at the same time, the principle of 'last come, first go' will apply. A further direction was given to the respondents to revise the provisional seniority list for each district so as to make them consistent with the guidelines issued by the Government along with its letter dated 15.5.1986. A further direction was also given to complete the said process within one month from the date of the order and submit copies of such lists to the Court on or before 6.2.1988 for granting such interim relief as may be thought fit. The said order was passed on December 29, 1988. The SCA/8217/1988 4/5 JUDGMENT matter has then been pending for final hearing. 4. It appears that Special Civil Application No. 3730/1987 along with Special Civil Application No. 937/87 came to be finally decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24th March, 1992. The said judgment is reported in 1992(2) GLR 805. 5. The question that arose before the Division Bench and arises before this Court relates to proviso to Rule-5 of the Gujarat Lower Revenue Qualifying Examination Rules, 1978. 6. The view taken by the Division Bench in the said decision in the case of A.P.Bhatt & Ors. vs. Collector of Panchmahals & Ors.(Special Civil Application No. 3730/1987) is that the said proviso treats equals as unequals and unequals as equals and, therefore, is ultra vires to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. The relief sought in Paragraph 15(A), therefore, has to be granted, as the present petition is covered by the said decision. Relief sought in Paragraph 15(B) is a consequential relief, whereas the petitioner does not press for the reliefs sought in Paragraphs 15(C) & (D) of the petition. The petition is thus, partly allowed in terms of Paragraphs 15(A), (B) & (E). Rule is made absolute. No costs. SCA/8217/1988 5/5 JUDGMENT [A.L.DAVE,J.] (patel)