Thereupon the appellant accepted the order re appointing him as junior draftsman in the Estates Department and took charge of his office.
1955 and worked there till 18th February, 1957.
1969 and remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the industrial companyrt.
The appellant filed a writ petition against the order of the industrial companyrt.
1971, cancelling the order dated 13.5.
1962 to 13.5.
In the meantime, on 16.8.
1964, when he was removed and then again till 16.8.65, when he was re appointed as a draftsman.
The appellant did number appear before the Staff Selection Committee perhaps because of the various proceedings above referred to, as a result of which he was under suspension from 5.12.
The industrial companyrt re heard the matter pursuant to the order of the High Court and declined approval to the order of removal of the appellant from service with the result that the order of removal dated 13.5.64 stood vacated and an order was passed on 3.3.71 by the Municipal Commissioner that the appellant was reappointed as a junior draftsman in the Town Planning Establishment.
But before this proposal companyld materialise the appellant was suspended on 5th December, 1962 by the Corporation and was removed from service on 13.5.64.
1977 on the ground that in the Corporation direct recruits were already working as junior draftsmen, and that there was numberpost of junior draftsman vacant in the Corpora tion, to which the appellant companyld be appointed.
Once the proceedings against the appellant came to a close, the Municipal Commissioner passed order on 3.3.
The appel lant thereupon filed a writ petition and, as already stated, he was unsuccessful therein and hence this present appeal.
The Municipal Corporation preferred S.L.P. 48/71 in this Court which was dismissed on 27.1.71.
Appellant in person.
When the above proceedings in the case of the appellant were taking place respondents 6 to 11 were directly selected as junior draftsmen by the Staff Selection Committee and promoted to the said post.
By the said order, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, companysequent on the staff of the Municipal Corporation working in the Town Planning Estab lishment having to be absorbed in the Municipal Corporation, reverted the appellant from the post of junior draftsman in the Establishment and appointed him to act in the post of a tracer in the Town Development Department of the Corpora tion.
1976, by which he was reverted to the services of the Municipal Corporation.
On such reverter, however, as we have seen, he was posted as a tracer and number as a junior drafts man.
The appel lant had been appointed as a tracer in the Estate Department of the Municipal Corporation on 26.6.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.4.
Subsequently, however, the Town Planning Establishment was abolished, and the appellant was served with the order dated 30.9.
No orders were passed on this representation except a direction that the appellant should join service within a week of receipt of the memo and then represent his case for seniority, if he so desired.
The High Court eventually, set aside the order of the industrial companyrt on 1.2.
1976 has been passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, who is a person lower in rank than the person who appointed him, namely, the Municipal Commissioner and that, therefore, the order dated 30.9.76 was passed by an officer without jurisdiction.
1965, companysequent on the recom mendations of the industrial companyrt, the appellant was ap pointed as junior draftsman in the Estates Department of the Municipal Corporation where he had been previously working.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1964 removing the appellant from service.
1978 of the Gujarat High Court in L.P.A. No.
It was also companytended that the order dated 30.9.
The appellant filed an appeal against the said order before the Standing Committee but his appeal was rejected on 15.3.
The order of the High Court has found that the appellant was relieved from service on 1.10.1967 because of retrenchment.
S. Parihar for the Respondents.
The Industrial Court granted approval to the removal of the appellant from service but made certain observations suggesting that he may be re appointed to the said post.
1213 of 1979.
1976 passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad.
He was re appointed as a junior draftsman in the Town Planning establishment.
This purported to be a fresh appointment and so the appel lant made a representation that he should be appointed in this post according to his seniority.
It is necessary to state the relevant facts.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. The appellant, D.M. Bharati, challenges the validity of an order dated 30.9.
97 of 1978.
The High Court rejected his writ petition and hence the present appeal.
