Skip to content


Nanalal Amardas Nimavat anr ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1978)19GLR863
AppellantNanalal Amardas Nimavat anr ors.
RespondentState of Gujarat and ors.
Excerpt:
- - 2 by artificially picking up only one vaccinator from each of the 18 districts in total disregard of the seniority and in total disregard for the right that had accrued to the petitioners for being sent up for the training, is ex-fade bad and, therefore, it will be liable to be struck down......said department. that scheme sponsored and financed by the central government was executed by the state government as its own machinery. when the petitioners and the others were on the state-wise cadre of vaccirators the government used to impart training to them in the course of sanitary inspectors so that they would be eligible for further promotion as sub-sanitary inspectors, sanitary inspectors and senior sanitary inspectors. as the petitioners say, this was the consistent policy uniformly adopted by the state government. the persons sent up for training in the government training centres were sent up strictly according to seniority. in the year 1966, these health services came to be allocated to different district panchayats with the result that the different vaccinators came to be.....
Judgment:

N.H. Bhatt, J.

1. This is a petition by three vaccinators who had joined the Government service in the year 1962 as vaccinators in the National Small-pox Eradication Programme implemented by the State of Gujarat through its department of Health. The respondent No. 2, the Director of Health Services was the head-officer of the said department. That scheme sponsored and financed by the Central Government was executed by the State Government as its own machinery. When the petitioners and the others were on the State-wise cadre of vaccirators the Government used to impart training to them in the course of sanitary inspectors so that they would be eligible for further promotion as sub-sanitary inspectors, sanitary inspectors and senior sanitary inspectors. As the petitioners say, this was the consistent policy uniformly adopted by the State Government. The persons sent up for training in the Government Training Centres were sent up strictly according to seniority. In the year 1966, these health services came to be allocated to different District Panchayats with the result that the different vaccinators came to be allocated to different Panchayats. These three petitioners had come to be allocated to the District Panchayat of Mehsana. The petitioners contend that they had a right to be so deputed for training which, if successfully completed, would confer on them the prospects of future promotion to the three higher grades. In the year 1974, the respondent No. 2, however, seems to have decided to send up only one vaccinator from each of the 18 districts with the result that the right to be sent up for training on the basis of the State-wise seniority that was given to the vaccinators as a clans, was violated. The petitioners contend that despite the allocation, rights of the petitioners that were there prior to the allocation, were intact, and the respondent No. 2 by passing the impugned eider, Annexure 'A' and deciding to depute only one vaccinator from each of the 18 districts, violated the petitioners' rights to be sent up for training. Moreover, it was alleged that the Malaria Surveillance investigators and the Malaria Surveillance did not require to pass the said examination and were not eligible for being sent up for such training and were not so sent till the date of allocation of the petitioners and other vaccinators. Still, they were also sent up for training under the order, Annexure 'A'.

2. Though the petition was filed as back as in the month of April 1974 and the interim relief prayed for by the petitioners was not granted by this Court on the Government solicitor stating that the rights of the petitioners in the matters of promotion to higher posts will not be affected in any manner whatsoever on account of their having not received the training then and others having received it at the training camp opening on 15-4-1974 and passing the examination in case the petitioners succeeded in this petition, no reply has been filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat or the Director of Health so far. This is really an unfortunate state of affairs The day in and the day out, persons in the charge of the Administration go on shouting from the public platforms that there are delays in the disposal of the judicial business. But the Judiciary in the present set-up of things in the Nation, is not expected to reply to or retaliate such bald allegations and charges. The instance on hand and many of the type i have come across during my dealing with Special Civil Applications in this Court in the course of the past four weeks constrain me to observe that very little assistance can be had by us from the State executive machinery. The cases of the Government many a time go by default and if proper assistance is rendered, the results adverse to the State can be avoided. In this case, for want of any counter allegations or denial what has been stated by the petitioners as to the substratum of their case has to be accepted as true. I, therefore, hold that what the petitioners have stated about the right of the vaccinators appointed by the State of Gujarat prior to 1966 and what they have stated about the Malaria Surveillance Investigators and the Malaria Technicians not requiring to pass the said examination are to be taken as true. It is obvious therefore that the order of the respondent No. 2 by artificially picking up only one vaccinator from each of the 18 districts in total disregard of the seniority and in total disregard for the right that had accrued to the petitioners for being sent up for the training, is ex-fade bad and, therefore, it will be liable to be struck down.

2.1. The result is that the petition requires to be allowed. The order, Annexure 'A' is hereby quashed and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to select vaccinators for the training for the sanitary inspectors training and examination according of their seniority amongst the allocated vaccinators on the basis of their inter-se seniority before the allocation and they are further directed to select such allocated vaccinators in preference to the Malaria Surveillance Investigators or the other Malaria workers. Rule is accordingly made absolute with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //