TRIVEDI HIMANSHU GHANSHYAMBHAI versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 1041 · Decided: 10-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
TRIVEDI HIMANSHU GHANSHY AMBHAI 
A 
v. 
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 10, 2007 
B 
[TAR UN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Eligibility Condition-Appointment for the post of Assistant C 
Manager-Written examination and Interview-Appointment of 
Appellant as Asst!. Manager who was serving as Technician but also 
discharging administrative duties-Whether experience possessed by 
the appellant could be considered as administrative experience to 
satisfy eligibility condition-Held: Officer supervising work D 
performance of the appellant certifying that the experience possessed 
by him was administrative in nature-No objection raised by 
respondents-unsuccessful candidates at the time of issuance of 
Certificate nor at the time of selection-Even the administrative nature 
of the experience possessed by the incumbent duly endorsed by E 
employer-Corporation-Besides, it was duly considered by 
Examination Committee while scrutinizing the application form before 
permitting him to appear in the written test-Interview Committee 
also considered the experience requirement and satisfied that the 
experience possessed by him was administrative in nature-In the past, F 
many employees holding technical posts promoted to administrative 
posts-Under the circumstances, the High Court not justified in 
holding that the experience possessed by the incumbent could not be 
considered as administrative experience-Moreover, it was not open 
to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to challenge the selection of the appellant G 
merely because their names did not appear in the merit list-High Court 
was not justified in exercising its power under Article 226 of the 
Constitution by granting relief to the writ petitioners-respondents-
Only because the records of marks obtained by candidates could not 
1041 
H 
1042 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A be produced by the employer-Corporation, the appointment of 
incumbent could not be cancelled only on this ground-Constitution 
of India, 1950-Article 226. 
Appellant was appointed as an X-Ray Technician in a Hospital 
B run under the supervision and control of Ahmedabad Municipal 
Corporation. In the Hospital, the appellant, apart from discharging 
his duty as an X-ray Technician was also, regularly carrying out the 
clerical and administrative work in the Hospital. On 13th of 
November, 1997, a circular was issued by the Corporation inviting 
applications for appointment for the post of Assistant Manager from 
C amongst the qualified existing employees of the Corporation. The 
appellant, forwarded his application in the prescribed form for 
appointment for the post of Asstt. Manager through the Supervising 
Officer. The application form, was duly scrutinized and the appellant 
was found eligible. Accordingly, Corporation directed him to appear 
D for a written test. On the basis of performance and marks scored, 
58 candidates, including the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 were 
selected and they appeared for an oral interview. The appellant was 
declared successful and he was appointed as Assistant Manager on 
a probation for a period of one year. Challenging the legality and 
E validity of the appointments to the post of Assistant Manager made 
by the Corporation, a writ petition was filed by respondent Nos. 2 
and 3, the unsuccessful candidates, in the High Court. Single Judge 
of the High Court held that the appointment of the appellant by the 
Corporation was bad, illegal and invalid and quashed it. Aggrieved, 
F 
the appellant challenged the judgment of the Single Judge, which was 
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the 
present appeal. 
The core question that needs to be decided in. this appeal was 
G as to whether the appellant fulfilled the requirement of ten years 
administrative experience for appointment for the post of Assistant 
Manager. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: 1.1. It was only after scrutiny by the respective heads 
TRIVEDI HIMANSHU GHANSHY AMBHAI v. 
1043 
AHMED ABAD MUNICIPAL CORPN. 
of the departments that the candidature of employees, including the A 
appellant, was forwarded to the Corporation for permitting them to 
appear in the written test and if successful, for an oral interview. In 
this case, there is no dispute that the application form of the appellant 
was duly signed by the Medical Officer who had endorsed and 
certified that the appellant was eligible to sit in the written test and B 
if s

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