RATILAL B. SONI & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 414 · Decided: 16-02-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
RATILAL B. SONI & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 16, 1990 
[KULDIP SINGH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961: Section 206A(2)-Panchayat 
Service-Employees-Deputation to State Service-Does not confer a 
right to be absorbed on the deputation-post. 
The appellants belonging to the Revenue Department of Gujarat 
State were allocated to the Panchayat Service when the Gujarat 
Panchayats Act, 1961 came into force and their allocation became final 
under section 206A(2) of the Act. Thereafter they went on deputation as 
Circle Inspectors in the State service but were later reverted back to 
their parent cadre in the Panchayat Service. 
The appellants challenged their reversion before the High Court 
which dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
E 
HELD: 
L It is clear from section 206A(2) of the Gujarat 
Panchayats Act, 196 l that a Panchayat servant who is not reallocated 
within a period of four years from the coming into force of the Act 
would be deemed to be finally allocated to the Panchayat Service. The 
High Court has held that the appellants have not been able to show that 
they made any such options before the specified date. Even ifthe appel-
F 
Jani gave some sort of option the same having not been accepted before 
the expiry of specitied date, the appellants stood finally allocated to the 
Panchayat Service. [416B-CJ 
2. The appellants being on deputation they could be reverted to 
their parent cadre at any time and they do not get al)y right to be 
G 
absorbed on the deputation-post. There is no infirmity in the judgment 
of the High Court. [416D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1012 
of 1987. 
if 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.86 of the Gujarat High 
414 • 
R.B. SONI v. STATE OF GUJARAT [KULDIP SINGH, l.J 
415 
Court in B.L.P.A. No. 259of1986. 
A 
B. Datta, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Shalini Soni for the Appellants. 
T.U. Mehta and M,N. Shroff for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
Kt;LDIP SINGH, J. The appellants are in the cadre of Talatis-
cum-Mantries (Patwaries) in the Panchayat Service of the State of 
Gujarat. In the year 1982/83 they were sent on dep~tation to the 
higher cadre of Circle Inspectors in the State service. The question for 
consideration is whether in the facts of this case the appellants have a 
C 
right to be absorbed in the cadre of Circle Inspectors. 
The appellants were originally appointed as Talatis in the 
Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat. Under the Gujarat 
Panchayat Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') which came into force 
with effect from April 1, 1963, Panchayat Service was constituted and . D 
under the Act all the posts of Talatis along with the incumbents stood 
transferred to the Panchayat Service. On that date there was a cadre of 
Circle Inspectors in the State Service which was bifurcated and 50% of 
the posts continued in the State Service and the remaining 50% were 
transferred _to the Panchayat Service. The appellants were sent on 
deputation as Circle Inspectors in the State Cadre. In January 1986 
E 
qualified officials became available for promotion to the post of Circle 
Inspectors in the State cadre and as such the appellants were reverted 
to their parent cadre. of Talatis in the Panchayat service. The appel-
lants challenged the reversion by way of writ petition in the Gujarat 
High Court primarily on the ground that their options for absorption 
in the State Service were pending with the State Government which 
F 
the State was bound to decide in their favour. The High Court dismis-
sed the writ petition holding that there was nothing on the record to 
show that the appellants gave any option to be absorbed in the State 
cadre. The High Court also found that they, being on deputation, have 
no legal right to be absorbed in the State Service. This appeal by 
special leave is against the judgment of the High Court. 
G 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The State by a 
circular dated February 8, 1965 asked the Talatis among others to give 
their options as to whether they want to remain ·in the Panchayat 
Service or to be re-allocated to the State Service. Section 206A(2) of 
the Act is as under: 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
416 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 
"Any officer or servant who is not reallocated under 
sub-section (1) and continues in the Panchayat Service 
immediately before the expiry of the aforesaid

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.