Crusade for appointment of right person on right job in public authority Contention taken in SCA 13901 of 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT : SURAT


SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.___________ OF 2011



ROHITKUMAR ROOPSINH CHAUDHARI & HIRNESHKUMAR S. BHAVSAR Petitioners

VERSUS

THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. .. Respondents


I N D E X

Sr.
No. Annexure Particulars Page Nos.
1. - List of Events & annexures A to U
2. - Memo of the petition 1 to 30
3. A Profile of petitioner No. 1
4. B Profile of petitioner No. 2
5. C Provisions of section 45(1) to (7) under the BPMC Act 1949
6. D Provisions of section 51(1) to (4) under the BPMC Act 1949
7. E Provisions of section 454 to 457 prescribing qualifications, making rules subject to approval of state & approval of the state under the BPMC Act 1949
8. F Provisions of section chapter 3 rule 1 to 4 method of appointment under the BPMC Act 1949
9. G Resolution passed by Administrator SMC
Dt.30-03-1995
10. H Resolution passed by Urban development ministry Gujarat State Dt.29-08-2005 upgrading post of Asst. Municipal commissioner in to Deputy Municipal commissioner in the same pay scale
11. I Resolution passed by General Board of SMC Dt 29-08-2008 creating posts of Deputy &Asst. Municipal commissioners with prescribing recruitment rules under section 457 of the BPMC act
12. J A true copy of the Advertisement dated 29.12.2008 issued by the Surat Municipal Corporation. 26 to 27
13. K Copy of details showing candidatures of petitioner No. 1 & 2 & respondent 4 & 5 in response to advertisement
14. L A copy of Resolution dated 04.01.10 issued by the urban development department of State Government. Sanctioning the posts & prescribibg recruitment rules duly amednded. 28 to 32
15. M A copy of letter of Municipal commissioner surat Dt. 27-01-2010 requesting urban development department of State of Gujarat to upgrade the post of existing two Asst. Municipal commissioners in to Deputy municipal commissioners in violation of statutory provision
16. N Reminder letter Dt. 30-03-2011 by Deputy municipal commissioner Personnel & inquiry SMC to urban development department of state with reference to letter of commissioner Dt. 27-01-2010 to upgrade two posts of AMC in to Deputy Municipal commissioner along with the officers presently on the posts.
17. O
A true copy of resolution dated 08.06.2011 issued by the urban development ministry of State Government upgrading & promoting respondent two officers against statutory provisions, who are also candidates for the advertised posts by corporation. 33 to 34
18. P A true copy of Office Order dated 08.06.2011 issued by the commissioner Surat Municipal Corporation upgrading & redesign ting to two respondent officer in question. who are also candidates for the advertised posts by corporation. 35
19. Q A true copy of board meeting agenda notice dated 18.07.2011 mentioning item 13which is in dispute to transect the business on Dt. 27-07-2011 board meeting & Copy of SMC board resolution Dt.27-07-2011 taking note of resolution of state Dt. 08-06-2011 36
20. R Copies of representation made by petitioner 2 by E. mails to the State of Gujarat on Dt. 01-06-2010,13th July 2011,19th July, 20th July,&22nd July 2011
21. S Copy of order of H/ High court dated 27th July 2011 in SCA 9216 of 2011 filed by the petitioners in
H/ Gujarat High court
22. T Copy of representation made by petitioners Dt. 03rd Aug 2011 to respondent No. 1 To 3 in view of order of H/ High court Dated 27th July 2011
23. U Reply by respondent No.3 Dt.30th August 2011, by respondent No. 1 Dt. 3rd Of September 2011 While no response from respondent No. 2 in response to representation made by petitioners.











IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT : SURAT

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.___________ OF 2011



ROHITKUMAR ROOPSINH CHAUDHARI & HIRNESHKUMAR S. BHAVSAR. Petitioners

VERSUS

THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. .. Respondents


LIST OF EVENTS

Date Particulars
21.03.1995 The petitioner no.1 was appointed on the post of Departmental Inquiry Officer and, thereafter, he was appointed on the post of Personnel Officer (Recruitment) since 06.03.1996. The petitioner no.1 is possessing the qualification of B.Com., LL.M. and Diploma in Human Resources Development. Petitioner has performed the duties of personnel, administration, inquiry officer, presenting officer, Octroi Superintendent, Assessment & recovery Officer, & like others of revenue, administrative & quasi judicial nature while in service in Surat municipal corporation. Thus multi faceted, multi dimensional exposure In public administration
25.07.1996 The petitioner no.2 was appointed on the post of Personnel Officer. The petitioner is possessing qualification of B.Com, LL.M. Master of Public Administration and the Government Diploma in Cooperation and Accountancy. Petitioner has performed the duties of personnel, administration, inquiry officer, presenting officer, Octroi Superintendent, Exam paper setter, examiner & evaluator for departmental examination for recruitment of officers & employees & like others of revenue, administrative & quasi judicial nature while in service in surat municipal corporation. Petitioner also impart training to Government & public staff regarding RIGHT TO INFORMATION act, Disaster Management & Public Administration as visiting faculty at Sardar Patel Institute of Public administration, Surat since 2005. Thus multi faceted, multi dimensional exposure In public administration

30-03-1995 Administrator of Surat Minicipal corporation passed resolution sanctioning up gradation & re designation of the posts of Asst. Municipal commissioner, Asst. municipal commissioner (personnel & inquiry) & Asst. municipal commissioner (Finance) along with names of persons holding particular posts at that time in to Deputy Municipal commissioner, Deputy municipal commissioner (personnel & inquiry) & Deputy municipal commissioner (Finance) within the same pay scale prevailing at that time i.e. 3000-4500 under G.C.S.R pay rules 1987 vide resolution No. 1806
29-08-2005 The Urban development department of State Government of Gujarat issued Resolution upgrading the post of Asst. municipal commissioner (personnel & inquiry) in to Deputy municipal commissioner (personnel & inquiry) along with the officer performing as Asst. municipal commissioner (personnel & inquiry) with reference SMC resolution dated 30-03-1995
29-08-2008 General Board of Surat Municipal corporation passed the resolution creation 4 posts of Deputy, 8 posts Asst. municipal commissioners & others. Vide resolution No. 579
29.12.2008 The Surat Municipal Corporation issued an advertisement inviting applications for some of various posts out of posts created vide resolution No 579 Dated 29-08-2008 subject to approval of state Government of Gujarat. The Col.No.1 of the advertisement describes the post & No. 2 describes the qualifications of the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner which is in dispute. The qualification for the above said post was graduation from recognized university and Law graduate or post graduate in any stream.

04.01.2010 The Urban development department of State Government of Gujarat issued Resolution sanctioning the qualifications for the posts created by general Board of SMC for Surat Municipal Corporation. Col.No.2 of Page No. 2 describe the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner and the qualification for the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner. Which is graduate from recognised University and law graduate or postgraduate and law graduate. By the said Resolution, the State Government made mandatory the degree of law for the post of deputy municipal commissioner in Surat Municipal Corporation which is in dispute. Setting aside the qualification prescribed by Board up to the extent of post Graduation.
27-01-2010 Municipal commissioner surat requested State of Gujarat by letter Dt. 27-01-2010 to upgrade the post of existing two Asst. Municipal commissioners in to Deputy municipal commissioners in violation of statutory provision
30-03-2011 Deputy municipal commissioner Personnel & inquiry SMC again send reminder to the urban development department of state with reference to letter of commissioner Dt. 27-01-2010 to upgrade two posts of AMC in to Deputy Municipal commissioner along with the officers presently on the posts.
08.06.2011 The State Government issued resolution upgrading the post of Assistant Municipal Commissioner and the Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Finance)& simultaneously promoting Shri C.Y.Bhatt & Sharad N.Mehta respectively two upgraded posts in violation to statutory provision referring the Resolution passed by the respondent-Corporation on 30.03.1995.
08.06.2011 The Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation issued an Office Order, whereby the respondent no.4 Shri C.Y. Bhatt presently working as Assistant Municipal Commissioner in the services of the Surat Municipal Corporation is upgraded and designated as Deputy Municipal Commissioner and the respondent no.5, Shri S.N. Mehta presently working as Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Finance) in the services of the Surat Municipal Corporation is upgraded and designated as Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Finance).
18 .07.2011 A true copy of board meeting agenda notice dated 18.07.2011 mentioning item 13 which is in dispute to transect the business on Dt. 27-07-2011 board meeting & copy of resolution passed by SMC Board in this regard on Dt. 27-07-2011 taking note of resolution of state
Copies of representation made by petitioner 2 by E. mails to the State of Gujarat on Dt. 01-06-2010,13th July 2011,19th July, 20th July,&22nd July 2011
30-08-2011 Reply by respondent No.3 i.e. municipal commissioner in response to representation by petitioners on Dt3rd August 2011 While no response or reply from respondent No. 2 i.e. corporation of Surat
03-09-2011 Reply by respondent No.1 i.e. State Government of Gujarat in response to representation by petitioners on Dt3rd August 2011

Thus, the respondent authorities without following due procedure prescribed under the law have arbitrarily & illegally promoted & appointed the respondent nos.4 and 5 on the post of the Deputy Municipal Commissioners.

Hence, this petition for appropriate orders and direction from this Honorable Court mainly on the following grounds :-
(A) The Promotion & appointment of the respondent nos.4 and 5 are without following due procedure& scrupulously following the procedure of mode of appointment prescribed under the BPMC Act. Under section 45 & chapter 3. Under these provisions general Board of the corporation is empowered to create the post of deputy municipal commissioner under section 45(2) subject to approval of state under section 45(3). In the case under dispute general board has made resolution way back in 1995 to redesign ate the post of AMC in to DMC as the pay scales of both were same & equal thus it was limited to the officers performing as AMC then as it was resolved to redesign ate with name. Such resolution has never been made for respondent No. 4& 5 prior to promotion & appointment by state. State of Gujarat is empowered to fill the posts after creating if general board who is appointing authority fails to make appointment within 4 months of creation of posts. In the case under dispute state has never given the opportunity to fill up the posts to appointing authority. Proposal to upgrade two existing posts of AMC was made by municipal commissioner without sanction or permission of board which it self is ultra virus.
(B) The Promotion & appointment of the respondent nos.4 and 5 are without jurisdiction, as there is no provision of direct promotion for any officer of section 45 under the BPMC Act. Thus ultra virus.
(C) The respondent authorities have given promotion & appointments to the respondent nos.4 and 5 only with a view to favour them for the reasons best known to them. Though respondent No. 4 is not fulfilling the basic qualifications prescribed under the BPMC act by state of Gujarat. While higher qualified candidates have already applied for the posts of DMC though it has been kept unprocessed.
(D) That, the respondent no.4 though does not possesses degree of law graduation, while to the respondent No. 5 without scrupulously following the procedure of mode of appointment both have been promoted & appointed on the post of deputy Municipal commissioner. Though invited applications for the posts of deputy municipal commissioners are pending since more than one & half year in which respondents 4 & 5 are also candidates. Thus it is in violation of constitutional provisions under article 14 & 16. Thus it is a backdoor entry on public posts of public authority.
(E) The respondents have violated the provisions of section 45 & chapter 3 of method of appointment coupled with provisions of section 51(4) the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. 1949.
(F) As per the various provisions of law, under section 51(4), 45 & chapter 3 of rules under BPMC ACT a fit person possessing required qualifications should only be appointed by following due process before appointment. Necessary procedure as required under the Law & as also under the article 14 & 16 is also required to be undertaken. This has not been done in the case under dispute.
(H) It is also pertinent to note that before giving any appointment or promotion No. objection certificate from vigilance & inquiry department is sought by every appointing authority. While in this case None of the respondent have ever bothered to seek it for respondents No. 4 & 5 before promoting & appointing. It also indicative that petitioners have already performed & are performing as departmental inquiry officers & presenting officer. And as matter came to their notice in one of the financial scam to the tune of Rs. More than 24 lakhs which has been recovered from the delinquent after inquiry, respondent No. 4 was his immediate superior. Thus needle of suspect goes to respondent No. 4 Honorable court may call the papers of inquiry from respondent No. 2 & 3
(I) Respondent No. 1 has mentioned in it’s resolution Dt. 8th June 2011 that after careful consideration & as resolved by the General board of Surat on Dt. 30-03-1995 respondent No. 4 & 5 are promoted & upgraded.
Now if Looked at resolution of Board/ administrator Dt. 30th March 1995 it was limited to than officers only, also it was limited to than prevailing pay scales which were equal for the posts of Asst. & deputy municipal commissioners. While in present case there was no such resolution passed by General Board of corporation for the respondent No. 4 & 5. Also in the case under dispute pay scales of both posts are higher. And in that case proposal of board under section 45(2) of the BPMC act followed by sanction of state under section 45(3) is mandatory read with section 51(4). This has never been done in present case.
Under the circumstances it becomes incumbent on the part of state to look in to these statutory provisions before sanctioning the posts & promoting & appointing the respondent No. 4 & 5. Though nothing has been considered by state who is guardian of local self government under section 451 of the BPMC ACT. Than How the claim of respondent No. 1 the State of careful consideration is logical, plausible & consistent with statutory provisions.


























IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT : SURAT

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.___________ OF 2011

In the matter under Articles 14, 16 & 226 of the Constitution of India;
And
In the matter against the appointment of Shri C.Y,Bhatt and Shri S.B. Mehta on the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner without following due procedure of law;
And
In the matter under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949
And
In the matter between………………


1) ROHITKUMAR ROOPSINH CHAUDHARI
Aged : 56 Years.
Residing at
25, Ramdevnagar Society,
Nr. Shantiniketan School,
Palanpur Road, Surat.

2) HIRNESHKUMAR SHARADCHANDRA BHAVSAR,
Aged : 47 Years.
Residing at
A/11, Shri Ramkrushna Raw House,
Besides Subhas Garden,
Jahangirpura Road, Surat. .. Petitioners

VERSUS


1) THE STATE OF GUJARAT,
(Notice to be served through
The Secretary,
Urban Development & urban housing development Department,
Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar).
2) THE SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
(Notice to be served through
The Municipal Commissioner,
Having its office at
Muglisara, Surat).
3) THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER,
Surat Municipal Corporation,
Municipal Commissioner,
Surat (Muglisara),
Surat.
4) SHRI C.Y. BHATT
Deputy Municipal Commssioner,
Surat Municipal Corporaion,
Muglisara, Surat.
5) SHRI S.N. MEHTA
Deputy Municipal Commssioner(F),
Surat Municipal Corporaion,
Muglisara, Surat. ..Respondents

To,
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND OTHER COMPANION HON'BLE
JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD.












HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT
1. The petitioners herein are the national and citizens of India and are entitled to the protection of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. That, the respondent nos.1 to 3 are the public authorities of the State Government and, hence, "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioners submit the following brief facts for kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court:-
2.1 That, the petitioner no.1 was appointed on the post of Departmental Inquiry Officer on 21.03.1995 and, thereafter, he was appointed on the post of Personnel Officer (Recruitment) since 06.03.1996. That, the petitioner no.1 possesses the qualification of B.Com. LL.M. and Diploma in Human Resources Development. Petitioner No. 1 has performed duties of personnel ,administration, recruitment, octroi superintendent, Assessment & recovery officer, General administration, financial , departmental inquiry officer , presenting officers & such other in officer category. Thus multi dimensional multi faceted exposure in public administration & governance. Profile is enclosed herewith marked as annexure A
2.2 That, the petitioner no.2 was appointed on the post of Personnel Officer on 25.7.1996. That, the petitioner is possessing qualification of B.Com., LL.M. Master of Public Administration & the Government Diploma in Cooperative of Accountancy. Petitioner No. 2 has performed duties of personnel ,administration, examination paper setter, & examiner for recruitments of public post in the category of employee & officers, octroi superintendent, General administration, financial , departmental inquiry officer , presenting officers & such others in officer category. Petitioner No. 2 is also imparting training to government& public authority’s employees & officers for the subjects of RIGHT TO INFORMATION, DISASTER MANAGEMENT & PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION. through sardar patel institute of public administration, surat as a visiting faculty. Thus multi dimensional multi faceted exposure in public administration & governance.
Profile is enclosed herewith marked as annexure B
2.3 General Board of Surat Municipal corporation passed the resolution for the creation of 4 posts of Deputy, 8 posts Asst. municipal commissioners & others. Vide resolution No. 579 under section 51(4) ,45(2),457, & 454 where in first provide for creation of post /new office exceeding certain pay scale, second one provide for creation of posts of deputy & asst. municipal commissioners, third provides for prescribing recruitment rules & qualifications & fourth provides for making rules.
All enclosed marked as annexure D,C, & E respectively
2.4 That, the Surat Municipal Corporation issued an advertisement dated 29.12.2008 inviting applications for some of various posts. out of posts created vide resolution No 579 Dated 29-08-2008 subject to approval of state Government of Gujarat. The Col.No.1 of the advertisement describes the post & No. 2 describes the qualifications of the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner which is in dispute. The qualification for the above said post was graduation from recognized university and Law graduate or post graduate in any stream. A true copy of the Advertisement dated 29.12.2008 issued by the the Surat Municipal Corporation is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-J to this petition.


2.5 That, the petitioners were & are possessing not only above stated but higher qualification as well as experience as required in the above said advertisement. Both the petitioners applied for the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner. Copy annexed as annexure K
2.6 That, the State Government issued Resolution dated : 04.01.2010 prescribing the qualifications for the posts created vide resolution Dt.29-08-2008 of general board of Surat, for Surat Municipal Corporation. Under section 51(4), 45(2),coupled with 455 of the BPMC Act The Col.No.2 provides about the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner and the qualification mentioned in column for the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner is graduate from the University and law graduate or postgraduate and law graduation. A copy of Resolution dated 04.01.2010 issued by the State Government is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-L to this petition along with annexure D,C, & E
2.7 That, the State Government asked higher than qualification prescribed by the Surat Municipal Corporation. However, the graduation in law is made mandatory to apply for the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner in the Surat Municipal Corporation. Annexure-L
2.8 That, the Surat Municipal Corporation has not appointed the Deputy Municipal Commissioner pursuant to the above said advertisement. That, in spite of giving preference to the advertisement and regular selection for the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner, the State Government and commissioner Surat Municipal Corporation adopted another illegal procedure to fill in the post of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner for particular persons to give them back door entry in the Surat Municipal Corporation. Letter of municipal commissioner Dt. 27-01-2010 & deputy municipal commissioner Dt. 30-03-2011 annexure M & N
2.9 That, the State Government issued resolution dated 08.06.2011 upgrading the post of Assistant Municipal Commissioner and Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Finance).& simultaneously promoting & appointing respondent No. 4 & 5 arbitrarily, illegally capriciously & ultra virus. As the creation of posts under section 51(4) read with 45(2) falls in the jurisdiction of state but appointing authority is general board of surat. Also it is in gross violation of state resolution Dt. 04-01-2010 prescribing law degree mandatory for the posts in dispute & which are as part of rules under BPMC Act section 457 & chapter 3 are existing & already in operation. Thus up to the extent of sanctioning post of DMC it is o.k. but latter part of promoting & appointing two officers i.e. respondent 4 & 5 by the state directly before situation arise under section 45(6) is void ab initio. As they are also candidates for the advertised posts by corporation, A true copy of resolution dated 08.06.2011 issued by the State Government is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-O & K to this petition.
2.10 It is pertinent to note that the State Government has issued the above said Resolution pursuant to the Resolution passed by the respondent-Corporation on 30.03.1995, letters of commissioner & respondent No. 3’s letter dated 27-01-2010 & deputy commissioner’s letter Dated 30-03-2011. Where in by said resolution of administrator dated 30-03-1995 categorically mentioned that pay scales of all three posts of AMC which proposed to redesign ate in to DMC for the than existing officers with name are equal. Thus it was out of ambit of section 51(4) i.e. creation of new office or posts under section 45(2) which requires resolution of general board too in this regard in case of increase in the pay scale or change of officers other than proposed.
While letter of respondent No. 3 dated 27-01-2010 followed by reminder of Dt. 30-03-2011 proposing state government to upgrade the posts of respondents No. 4 & 5 with name in to deputy municipal commissioners are it self ultra virus in the absence of any consent or proposal of general board who is appointing authority of both. It is also illegal up to the extent proposing for unqualified person i.e. respondent No.4. Thus arbitrary & capricious in manner. Also it is in violation of article 14 & 16 of the constitution of India which has deprived rest of the contenders of advertised deputy municipal commissioners posts including present petitioners who are higher qualified & more experienced.
2.11 That, the commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation issued an Office Order dated 08.06.2011, i.e. on the same date of state resolution, whereby the respondent no.4, Shri C.Y.Bhatt than working as Assistant Municipal Commissioner in the services of the Surat Municipal Corporation is upgraded and promoted as Deputy Municipal Commissioner. And also he has been given the department of recruitment which has to take care of appointment of right person on right job in public appointment. That, the respondent no.5, Shri S.N.Mehta presently working as Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Finance) in the services of the Surat Municipal Corporation is upgraded and promoted as Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Finance). Which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, un prudent, irrational, implausible, undemocratic, non transparent, unaccountable capricious in nature, showing undue favors of respondent NO. 4 & 5. Also it is note worthy that any such resolution is to be put up before general board i.e. appointing authority & than accordingly it should be processed. While in this case commissioner had without bidding an eyelid gave the appointment with more than the velocity of sunlight, without bothering to put up proposal of revised qualification or resolution of state upgrading & promoting both respondent to the general board. A true copy of office order dated 08.06.2011 issued by the Surat Municipal Corporation is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-P to this petition.
2.12 That, the Surat Municipal Corporation has issued a note/advertisement in the newspaper dated 19.07.2011 of board meeting agenda stating that matters mentioned in it will be placed before the monthly General Meeting, which will be held on 27.07.2011 for the approval.
That, the Item No.13 was for taking note, of promotion, up gradation and appointment of the respondent nos.4 and 5 on the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner. Thus, the Surat Municipal Corporation had kept the above said item in the agenda for taking note of promotion, up gradation and appointment of the respondent nos.4 and 5 on the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner. And subsequently general Board has taken note of such illegal, unjust, Arbitrary & capricious resolution coupled with illegal appointment by commissioner, on the schedule meeting. A true copy of newspaper cutting /board agenda dated 19.07.2011/ 18-07-11 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-Q to this petition.






2.13 That in pursuance to appointment of respondent No. 4 & 5 on behalf of petitioners, petitioner No 2 had already represented the matter to respondent No. 1 state of Gujarat by E. mails dated 13th July,2011,19th July,20th July & 22nd July 2011 through the R/secretary Urban development, R/Legal secretary, & R/principle secretary to H/E Governor in this regard & requested to restrain the corporation from doing further action in this regards along with request to quash the appointment of respondent No. 4 & 5.
Even prior to that on completion of four months of advertisement inviting applications for the posts in dispute petitioner No. 2 by E. mail dated 1st June 2010,sought the information from state of Gujarat whether it is going to fill up the posts kept vacant by corporation invoking it’s powers under section 45(6)
But no any actions were initiated in this regard.
Annexure R
2.14 That Ultimately petitioners had resorted Honorable this court by SCA 9216/2011 in the month of July seeking legal remedy & preying justice in this regard.
In the matter of which H/ Justice court No 4 had issued the order directing petitioners to represent the matter before respondent No. 1 to 3 within 15 days from the receipt of order & also directing respondent No. 1 to 3 to consider such representation made by the petitioners & examine the grievance of present petitioners and then to pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of receiving representation from petitioners & communicate the decision to petitioners immediately.
Annexure S
2.15 That the petitioners in view of H/ High Court order Dated 27th July 2011 represented the matter to respondent No. 1 to 3 on Dt. 3rd August 2011 seeking quashing of appointment of respondent No. 4 & 5 & also preying to give appointment to petitioners either on upgraded posts or on the vacant post following due process.
Annexure T
2.16 That petitioners have received reply from only respondent No. 1 & 3 i.e. State of Gujarat & Municip0al commissioner respectively Which are also not the reasoned reply as ordered by & directed by H/ High court/ While No reply from respondent No. 2 which is contempt of H/ High court.
Received replies are not satisfactory, just, reasoned & redressing the grievance of petitioners. On the ground _
On completion of stipulated period/ 30 days against the deadline of 30 days no reasoned order for petitioner’s grievance is being received from respondent no. 2 While the reply received from respondent No.1 & 3 are not reasoned order. As reply of respondent No 1 the State of Gujarat has describes regarding our prime grievance that the posts of respondent No 4 & 5 are upgraded in response to proposal of administrator Dt. 1995 & in pursuant to commissioner & corporation’s proposal to do so in view of extended area of municipal corporation. While regarding recruitment of posts it narrates that it is to be filled up by corporation. But state’s reply is mysteriously silent about legality & merit of the up gradation of posts in the context of statutory provisions under section 51 i.e creation of new office, section 45(2) appointment of fit person possessing prescribed qualifications under rule 3 of the chapter 3 of the BPMC Act. It is pertinent to note that 1995 resolution of administrator was limited to those three officers , at that time none of the respondent no 4 or 5 was serving as Asst Municipal corporation, The pay scales & qualifications of Dmc & Amc posts were one & equal. While at present it is different. It is also indicative that when pay scales are higher than it tantamount to creation of new office u/s 51, for which proposal & resolution of general board who is appointing authority is mandatory, which is not followed in present case. Also to be noted that when the person is to be appointed he should possess prescribed qualification under the rules which is not fulfilled by respondent No. 4 that he is having no law degree. It is also note worthy that state of G8ujarat it self has prescribed qualification under section 45(2) by it’s resolution Dt. 04-01-2010 though it has not been scrupulously followed in the case under dispute. While respondent No 3 municipal commissioner’s reply Describes for our prime grievance it has issued office order Dt 8th June 2011. in pursuant to state government resolution Dt. 8th June 11. Thus passed on the buck on state Government. Also reply is silent about legality of appointment of respondent No. 4 & 5. While it also seems to have materially suppressed the fact, because it narrate that corporation has issued the office order but as per general board agenda there is no mention of such office order business on board meeting to issue office order. Board has taken the note that is also after issue of office order by municipal commissioner. Also regarding the process of applications invited it indicate that corporation has not taken any steps but in our petition corporation as well as municipal commissioner both are respondent thus it is silent about process done at the level of municipal commissioner. It is also pertinent to note that reply narrate that corporation is going to issue fresh advertisement but when the matter is subjudice & contention to fill up the post from amongst received application is raised by petitioners in H/ high court the action likely to be taken is prejudicial to the petitioners. Also it is cryptic silent about approval of general board to do so. As under BPMC Act corporation & commissioner both are different authorities
2.17 That, the petitioners have applied for the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioners. That, the petitioners are eligible and entitled to be considered pursuant to the above said advertisement and recruitment rules approved by the State Government on the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner. That, in spite of giving importance to the advertisement and Recruitment rules approved by the state, and in spite of procedure prescribed for the appointment on the post of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner pursuant to the above said advertisement & state resolution prescribing qualification, the State Government respondent no. 1 and the respondent-No. 3 & 2 commissioner & Corporation have resorted illegal ways & means and appointed the respondent nos.4 and 5 in gross violation of state of Gujarat’s resolution Dt. 04-01-2010 prescribing essential qualification which is part of BPMC Act rules under chapter 3, and also making mockery of method of appointment under chapter 3 rules & provisions of section 45 of the BPMC act. Thus flouting existing rules & provisions, under the guise of up gradation on the posts of deputy municipal commissioner which is in dispute.
2.18 That the respondent No.1 to 3 are not going to recruit the posts of Deputy municipal commissioners & Asst Municipal commissioners from the applications received . As per their previous couple of behaviors until their desired candidates are not befitting in to the criteria, respondent No 2 & 3 had in past not recruited the candidates from invited applications. Rather invited applications were filed by couple of years without citing any reasons in the past. Also all that time respondent No 1 remained silent & inactive. Even respondent No 2 & 3 had acted in the past up to the extent to revise recruitment rules befitting to their criteria & to select them in past & respondent No 1 had never invoked it’s statutory powers under section 45(5) & (6) as well as under section 451 of the BPMC Act.
Even respondent No 2 & 3 had acted with malafide intention in past & we have apprehension of similar reaction in present case Though the matter is subjudice before a month & petitioners have already invoke the issue before H/ court seeking to recruit right person for right job from amongst invited applications.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid illegal, arbitrary, unjust, un prudent, irrational, implausible, undemocratic, non transparent, unaccountable, capricious in nature, undue favoring respondent NO. 4 & 5, actions on the part of the respondent authorities by appointing the respondent nos.4 and 5 on the post of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner in gross violation of existing rules & regulations & without following proper, just, prudent, democratic, rationale, plausible, transparent & accountable procedure, the petitioners beg to challenge the same on the following main amongst other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of this petition.
: G R O U N D S :
(A) The petitioners submit that the action of the respondent nos.1 to 3 of appointing the respondent nos.4 and 5 on the post of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner in the Surat Municipal Corporation is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, un prudent, irrational, implausible, undemocratic, on transparent, unaccountable, capricious in nature, undue favoring respondent NO. 4 & 5 ,malafide and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
(B) The petitioners submit that the respondent-Corporation issued an advertisement on 29.12.2008 and invited the applications for the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner and in pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioners had applied for the above said post. It is, therefore, submit that for filling up the said post, the Surat Municipal Corporation is required to follow proper procedure for the appointment pursuant to the above said advertisement. It is, however, submitted that the respondent nos.4 and 5 have been appointed on the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner without following due procedure. As No. 4 is not possessing essential qualification while regarding No. 5 No method of appointment is scrupulously followed Therefore, this Honorable Court may be pleased to issue necessary orders and directions to the respondents authorities for following due procedure & consider existing recruitment rules, regulations & provisions of the act before confirming appointing the respondent nos.4 and 5.
(C) The petitioners submit that the petitioners are not only duly qualified but also possessing preferential & added , higher qualification & multi exposure with wide experience for being considered on the post of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner. The petitioners submit that on the contrary, the respondent no.4, Shri Bhatt is not law graduate and thereby he does not fulfill the requisite educational qualification for the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner. Therefore, the respondent no.4 ought not to have been appointed on the post of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner.
(D) The petitioners submit that the promotion of the officers of section 45 BPMC ACT is not provided under the Law. Respondent No. 1 solely relied on the letter of municipal commissioner & respondent No 3 to promote & upgrade. It is pretty clear from the resolution of state where in no reference of general board under section 45(2) coupled with 51 (4) is there from the board The appointing authority. While municipal commissioner is neither appointing authority nor superior to board as per BPMC Act. The petitioners submit that the entire exercise of the respondent nos.1 to 3 in promoting and appointing the respondent nos.4 and 5 on the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner is contrary to law and contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
(E) It is most humbly submitted that the Surat Municipal Corporation is a local self Government and Urban Local Body under the Article 243 of the Constitution of India and thereby "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Surat Municipal Corporation ought to have acted in fair manner. Also looking to the 74th constitutional amendment & given autonomy to local self government state of Gujarat aught not have snatched the SMC from enjoying it’s statutory powers by directly promoting & appointing the respondents No. 4 &5






(F) The petitioners submit that as per the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, more particularly, Section 45 of the said Act is made for Municipal Officer and servant and their appointment and their service. Under Section 45(2) of the said Act, the Corporation may from time to time at the approval of the State Government create an appointment of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner or Assistant Municipal Commissioner. The provisions of the said Act also say that the Corporation may appointment a fit person or fit person to such appointments.
The petitioners submit that in the instant case, though the respondent no.4 herein does not possess requisite qualification, he has been given appointment on the post of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner against the rules enshrined under chapter 3 methods of appointment & section 45 of the BPMC act. Therefore, this Honorable Court may be pleased to issue necessary orders and directions to the respondent authorities for following due procedure.
(G) The petitioners submit that the method of the appointment as provided under Chapter 3 of the Annexure-A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act,1949 provides that " No person shall be appointed to any of the post." The power of the appointment to which vest in the Corporation unless he possesses the qualification prescribed in this behalf under Rule 3.
(H) The petitioners submit that Rule 3 categorically says that such qualifications will be in the approval of the State Government, who may in granting such approval such modification in or addition to the qualification prescribed by the Corporation as it deems fit.





(I) The petitioners submit that the powers to make such Rules are given to the Corporation under Section 457(3) of the said Act, which are subject to Section 454 of the said Act. It also provides that the power to make, add to, alter to or rescind any rule under Section 454 shall be subject to the sanction of the State Government which further provides under Section 455(2) that all rules made under Section 454 shall be finally published in official gazette and shall there upon have effect as narrated in this Act.
(J) The petitioners submit that as per the above narrated provisions, the Surat Municipal Corporation had prescribed the qualifications for the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner and the Assistant Municipal Commissioner vide General Board Resolution No.75/2008 dated 29.8.2008. By the said Resolution, the Surat Municipal Corporation had created three posts of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner and eight posts of Assistant Municipal Commissioner, apart from one post of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner to be filled on deputation. In response to the Surat Municipal Corporation's such approval, the State Government, Urban Ministry had sanctioned all posts of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner proposed by the Surat Municipal Corporation but invoking the powers of the State Government under Rule Chapter 3 of the Schedule-A of the said Act accompanied with the provisions of Section 455(1) modified and altered the qualification of both the posts by making law graduation mandatory apart from the qualifications proposed and sanctioned by the Surat Municipal Corporation General Board vide its Resolution dated 04.01.2010.




(K) The petitioners submit that subsequently, under the provisions of Section 45 accompanied with the provisions of Chapter 3 of Schedule-A, all the posts were to be filled by the Corporation. That, the Corporation had invited the applications vide advertisement dated: 29.12.2008, however, no actions were initiated to recruit a fit person on the sanctioned posts until now.
(L) The petitioners submit that under the provisions of Section 45(6) of the Act, in default of an appointment being made by the Corporation under sub-section(5), the State Government may appoint a fit person to fill the vacancy but the State Government of Gujarat is also failed to perform their statutory duty provided in the Act until now.
(M) The petitioners submit that as per the local media, report came to the notice that repeated efforts were made by the Municipal Commissioner and not by the Surat Municipal Corporation to alter the recruitment Rules and qualifications approved by the State of Gujarat vide its Resolution dated 04.01.2010 especially for the post of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner. But fortunately, the State of Gujarat till date remained firm to stick the qualifications approved by the State.
(N) The petitioners submit that meanwhile, another development came in the form of up gradation of existing two posts of Assistant Municipal Commissioner, which was in response to the Corporation's proposal to upgrade both the posts way back in the year 2005. On up gradation of the post by the State under Section 45(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act,1949, it becomes incumbent on the part of the Surat Municipal Corporation to fill both the posts following the procedure laid down under Section 45(1) to (7) of the said Act along with the provisions of Rule under Chapter 3 of Schedule A. But no such procedure has been initiated on the part of the Corporation rather Municipal Commissioner directly appointed both the persons having appointed of Assistant Commissioner (F) and Assistant Commissioner viz., Mr.S.N. Mehta and Mr. C.Y. Bhatt respectively as Deputy Municipal Commissioner which itself is an ultra virus act on the part of the Municipal Commissioner because the Municipal Commissioner is neither appointing authority nor member of selection committee of the said posts. Petitioner also submit that when unqualified person is appointed as deputy commissioner and given the department of recruitment which has to take care of appointment of right person on right job, the interest of present petitioners as well as other contenders of public appointment in Surat municipal corporation is apprehended to be jeopardize. As C.Y.Bhatt respondent no. 4 is having recruitment department.
(O) The petitioners submit that even if the appointment is to be made, a fit person on the upgraded post without following procedure of the regular recruitment, specially provision is made under Rule 2 of Chapter -3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 by mode of chapter proviso and as per the existing provisions even for invoking chapter proviso. That, the proposal must be moved to the General Board, who is appointing authority for making such appointment amongst fit persons possessing required qualifications as per Section 457 of the Act and as sanctioned by the State Government under Section 455 of the Act.
(P) The petitioners submit that if look at existing provisions as stated hereinabove, the Law Graduation is mandatory though Municipal Commissioner has appointed Mr.C.Y. Bhatt as Deputy Municipal Commissioner, who does not possess the degree of law graduation till date. Thus, both the Deputy Municipal Commissioners appointed by the Municipal Corporation are without force of law. Tantamount to revocation of such appointment ab-initio.
(Q) The petitioners submit that before giving any appointment or promotion No. objection certificate from vigilance & inquiry department is sought by every appointing authority. While in this case None of the respondent have ever bothered to seek it for respondents No. 4 & 5 before promoting & appointing. It is also indicative that petitioners have already performed & are performing as departmental inquiry officers & presenting officer. And as matter came to their notice in one of the financial scam to the tune of Rs. More than 24 lakhs which has been recovered from the delinquent after inquiry, respondent No. 4 was his immediate superior. Thus needle of suspect goes to respondent No. 4 Honorable court may call the papers of inquiry from respondent No. 2 & 3

(R) The petitioners submit that Respondent No. 1 has mentioned in it’s resolution Dt. 8th June 2011 that after careful consideration & as resolved by the General board of Surat on Dt. 30-03-1995 respondent No. 4 & 5 are promoted & upgraded.
Now if Looked at resolution of Board/ administrator Dt. 30th March 1995 it was limited to than officers only, also it was limited to than prevailing pay scales which were equal for the posts of Asst. & deputy municipal commissioners. While in present case there was no such resolution passed by General Board of corporation for the respondent No. 4 & 5. Also in the case under dispute pay scales of both posts are higher. And in that case proposal of board under section 45(2) of the BPMC act followed by sanction of state under section 45(3) is mandatory read with section 51(4). This has never been done in present case.
Under the circumstances it becomes incumbent on the part of state to look in to these statutory provisions before sanctioning the posts & promoting & appointing the respondent No. 4 & 5. Though nothing has been considered by state who is guardian of local self government under section 451 of the BPMC ACT. Than the claim of respondent No. 1 the State “of careful consideration” is not little bit logical, plausible & consistent with statutory provisions.
(S) It is also pertinent to note that the invited applications to recruit the posts of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner and the Assistant Municipal Commissioner are still pending which are prior to up gradation of post, though Municipal Commissioner has without proceeding earlier application illegally appointed two persons on two up gradation posts of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, which is later development. Thus, the rule of first in, first out is also not followed here.
(T) It has also been noticed that out of the sanctioned various posts of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Additional City Engineer etc. efforts were made by the Municipal Commissioner to fill up post of Additional City Engineer in the year 2010 for four posts, whereas rest of the vacant posts charge was given to three junior officer by the Municipal Commissioner, who were not in the list of the scrutiny made by the Municipal Corporation for selection of the posts.
(U) It is also pertinent to note that the deliberately no such move was initiated regarding the post of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner and the Assistant Municipal Commissioner. That in pursuance to appointment of respondent No. 4 & 5 on behalf of petitioners, petitioner No 2 had already represented the matter to respondent No. 1 state of Gujarat by E. mails dated 13th July,2011,19th July,20th July & 22nd July 2011 through the R/secretary Urban development, R/Legal secretary, & R/principle secretary to H/E Governor in this regard & requested to restrain the corporation from doing further action in this regards along with request to quash the appointment of respondent No. 4 & 5.
Even prior to that on completion of four months of advertisement inviting applications for the posts in dispute petitioner No. 2 by E. mail dated 1st June 2010,sought the information from state of Gujarat whether it is going to fill up the posts kept vacant by corporation invoking it’s powers under section 45(6)
But no any actions were initiated in this regard.

(V) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, it transpires that the respondent authorities have favored the respondent nos. 4 and 5 by not following due procedure as prescribed and directly appointed them on the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner. Therefore, the action of the respondent authorities is required to be deprecated by issuing necessary orders and directions.






(W) The petitioners submit that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is without any jurisdiction. Therefore, this Honorable Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent nos.1 to 3 from proceeding further.
(X) Looking to past behaviors to file invited & received applications in response to advertisement until desired candidatures are befitting in to their criteria even going up to the extent of revising or amending the qualifications on the part of respondent No 2 & 3 & inactive/ dorment behavior on the part of respondent No 1 not to invoke statutory powers in such illegal cases repetition of similar action is not rule out in present case to file the applications received for the sake of selfish motive. Though matter is contentious on filing SCA No 9216 of 2011 in This Court. Thus gross injustice to not only present petitioners but also to all the contenders of the post.
It is also note worthy that materially it does not make any difference to scrutinize and select the candidates from amongst received applications in post amended qualifications. Because Previously it was graduate & law graduate now law graduation is mandatory & degree wise law graduation is also graduate & thus eligible & interested candidates fro law graduation must have filed the candidature.
(y) That petitioners have received reply from only respondent No. 1 & 2 i.e. State of Gujarat & Municip0al commissioner respectively Which are also not the reasoned reply as ordered by & directed by H/ High court/ While No reply from respondent No. 2 which is contempt of H/ High court.
Received replies are not satisfactory, just, reasoned & redressing the grievance of petitioners. On the ground _
On completion of stipulated period/ 30 days against the deadline of 30 days no reasoned order for petitioner’s grievance is being received from respondent no. 2 While the reply received from respondent No.1 & 3 are not reasoned order. As reply of respondent No 1 the State of Gujarat has describes regarding our prime grievance that the posts of respondent No 4 & 5 are upgraded in response to proposal of administrator Dt. 1995 & in pursuant to commissioner & corporation’s proposal to do so in view of extended area of municipal corporation. While regarding recruitment of posts it narrates that it is to be filled up by corporation. But state’s reply is mysteriously silent about legality & merit of the up gradation of posts in the context of statutory provisions under section 51 i.e creation of new office, section 45(2) appointment of fit person possessing prescribed qualifications under rule 3 of the chapter 3 of the BPMC Act. It is pertinent to note that 1995 resolution of administrator was limited to those three officers , at that time none of the respondent no 4 or 5 was serving as Asst Municipal corporation, The pay scales & qualifications of Dmc & Amc posts were one & equal. While at present it is different. It is also indicative that when pay scales are higher than it tantamount to creation of new office u/s 51, for which proposal & resolution of general board who is appointing authority is mandatory, which is not followed in present case. Also to be noted that when the person is to be appointed he should possess prescribed qualification under the rules which is not fulfilled by respondent No. 4 that he is having no law degree. It is also note worthy that state of G8ujarat it self has prescribed qualification under section 45(2) by it’s resolution Dt. 04-01-2010 though it has not been scrupulously followed in the case under dispute. While respondent No 3 municipal commissioner’s reply Describes for our prime grievance it has issued office order Dt 8th June 2011. in pursuant to state government resolution Dt. 8th June 11. Thus passed on the buck on state Government. Also reply is silent about legality of appointment of respondent No. 4 & 5. While it also seems to have materially suppressed the fact, because it narrate that corporation has issued the office order but as per general board agenda there is no mention of such office order business on board meeting to issue office order. Board has taken the note that is also after issue of office order by municipal commissioner. Also regarding the process of applications invited it indicate that corporation has not taken any steps but in our petition corporation as well as municipal commissioner both are respondent thus it is silent about process done at the level of municipal commissioner. It is also pertinent to note that reply narrate that corporation is going to issue fresh advertisement but when the matter is subjudice & contention to fill up the post from amongst received application is raised by petitioners in H/ high court the action likely to be taken is prejudicial to the petitioners. Also it is cryptic silent about approval of general board to do so. As under BPMC Act corporation & commissioner both are different authorities
(Z) Even otherwise, the petitioners are eligible and entitled for the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner. Therefore, necessary orders and directions are required to be issued in the interest of justice.
4. The petitioners state that the petitioners crave leave to amend, add, alter, delete or substitute any of the forgoing paragraphs as and when required.
5. The petitioners state that the petitioners have no other alternative and equally efficacious remedy except to approach this Honorable Court by way of this petition for appropriate orders in the matter.
6. The petitioners state that the petitioners have not approached in respect of the subject matter of this petition either before the Honorable Supreme Court of India or before this Honorable Court.
7. In view of the facts stated herein above, the petitioners most respectfully prays that :-
(A) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue contempt of court notices to respondent No 2 for not replying as per order of H/ High court & to respondent 1& 3 for not replying reasoned order as ordered by H/ High court
(C) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of co warranto/mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order of direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.06.2011 (Annexure-E) issued by the State Government up to the extent promotion and appointment and also quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.06.2011 (Annexure-D) issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation





(D) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of co warranto /mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order of direction restraining the respondent nos.1 to 3 from confirming the appointment of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 on the post of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner in Surat Municipal Corporation.
(E) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order of direction restraining the respondent nos.4 and 5 from discharging their duties of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner with the Surat Municipal Corporation. As C.Y.Bhatt respondent no. 4 is having recruitment department as divisional head and under the BPMC act he is enjoying powers of municipal commissioner. Thus the interest of present petitioners as well as other contenders of public appointment in Surat municipal corporation is apprehended to be jeopardize.
(F) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order of direction to the Surat Municipal Corporation & state of Gujarat to revert the respondent No 4 & 5 from the post of deputy municipal commissioner & deputy municipal commissioner (F) respectively which are held by them illegally without the force of law tantamount to usurping public posts by wrong persons.
(G) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the Surat Municipal Corporation & the state of Gujarat to consider the representation made by petitioners & prey sought by them on merit & with justice. & also to proceed immediately to fill up the vacant posts of section 45 I.e. deputy & Asst. municipal commissioners following due process with complete transparency accountability & purely on merit from amongst invited & received application in response to 2008 advertisement keeping in mind final recruitment rules & qualifications.
Petitioners also submit that until that process, respondent No 1 to 3 be restrained from filing such received applications.
(H) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to restrain the respondent nos.4 and 5 from discharging their duties of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner with the Surat Municipal Corporation. And to consider the claim of petitioners to appoint the right persons on right job in public authority. As since advertisement though of their candidatures No process is made deliberately to recruit them. thus cumulative loss to the petitioners career is aggravated with no fault of them
(I) YOUR LORSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other order and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE PETITIONERS AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL FOR EVER PRAY.



Place : Ahmedabad
Dated : /09/2011
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS