Amrutaben Bhalabhai Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 13255 Guj

    C/SCA/12691/2017                                 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12691 of 2017

==========================================================
                       AMRUTABEN BHALABHAI CHAUHAN
                                  Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. NIMISHA SHARMA(7295) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

                               Date : 02/09/2021

                                ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for respondent no.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent-State.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

"A. YOUR LORDSHIPS, maybe pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/s, orders, and/or direction/s to respondent to reinstate the service of the petitioner with the same salary she was getting earlier.

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS, may be pleased to give directions/orders to the respondent to

C/SCA/12691/2017 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

consider the representation of petitioner and reinstate her in service with immediate effect.

C. Your Lordships, may allow petitioner to sit in the examination conducted by the respondent incoming years and special addition of marks maybe given to petitioner looking to the service of the petitioner.

D. YOUR LORDSHIPS, maybe pleased to pass such other and further reliefs, as may be deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in faovur of the petitioners in the interest of justice.

E. Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pass appropriate order for giving the same treatment to the petitioner, which has been given to 46 Female Health Workers of District Panchayat, Rajkot on the basis of the resolution dated 25.02.2009 and be pleased to quash and set aside the termination order dated 15.09.2014 and be pleased to pass appropriate order for reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and respondents may kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner and status of the permanent Female Health Worker may be ordered to be conferred upon the petitioner, in view of the resolution dated 25.02.2009 and view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.03.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 10400 of 2012 and order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 10.08.2017 in Letters patent Appeal No. 1264 of 2016, in the interest of justice."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as adhoc appointee as a Female Health worker in the District Panchayat,

C/SCA/12691/2017 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

Ahmedabad in 1996 pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 1992.

3.1) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner got extension in service till 9 th May, 2013. The petitioner thereafter, came to know about the order of termination being passed on 6th March, 2013, and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 8799/2013 and allied matters which came to be dismissed on 7 th August, 2014 and thereafter, Letters Patent Appeal No. 923/2014 and allied matters were preferred which also came to be dismissed on 15th September, 2014. After the order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 15th September, 2014. SLP No. 29152-29155/2014 also came to be dismissed on 24th April, 2017.

3.2) The petitioner thereafter, made a representation dated 29th May, 2017 pointing out that similarly situated Female Health workers were given regular appointment and therefore, the petitioner may also be given regular appointment. However, there being no response from the respondents, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has rendered

C/SCA/12691/2017 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

services from January 1996 to September 2014. It was submitted that this is the second round of litigation. This petition is filed by the petitioner in view of the benefits given to the similarly situated persons pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 23 rd March, 2016 in Special Civil Application No.8714/2013.

4.1) It was further submitted that the petitioner had earlier preferred Special Civil Application No.8799/2013 which was dismissed by this Court and Letters Patent Appeal No.923/2014 arising therefrom was also dismissed. It was also pointed out that SLP has also been dismissed of by the Supreme Court.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal submitted that the petitioner has already lost upto the Supreme Court and therefore, no further benefits can be considered except to consider the case of the petitioner in light of decision of the Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.

6. Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for respondent no.2-District Development Officer, Ahmedabad District Panchayat submitted that the petitioner was appointed on conditional and adhoc basis in absence of regular recruitment process and the

C/SCA/12691/2017 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

petitioner was issued appointment orders from time to time purely on temporary and adhoc basis. It was further submitted that in all 78 posts were advertised on 6th June, 2010 by Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board and also age relaxation was granted to those candidates who were in employment on adhoc basis or contractual basis. The petitioner who belongs to Schedule Caste applied in response to the said advertisement but failed to get through the selection process. It was further submitted that in the year 2011 also, 30 posts reserved for SEBC candidates and Schedule Tribe candidates were filled in through advertisement but as the petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste, her application was rejected. Similarly, in the year 2014, advertisement was published for 43 Female Health workers on 22nd January, 2014 but the petitioner did not submit her application or participated in the recruitment process.

6.1) It was submitted that in view of judgment dated 7th August, 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 8799/2013 and Special Civil Application No. 8800/2013, decision to relieve the petitioner and similarly situated other adhoc employees was taken and vide order dated 16th September, 2014, the service of the petitioner was brought to an end. It was also submitted that the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal No. 923/2014

C/SCA/12691/2017 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

by judgment dated 15th September, 2014 and SLP No. 29152-29155/2014 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 24th April, 2017. It was therefore, submitted that in view of the above facts, the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service.

7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was one of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 8799/2013 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7 th August, 2014. Letters Patent Appeal No. 923/2014 was also dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 15th September, 2014 subject to consideration of the case of the petitioner in light of decision in case of Umadevi (Supra). The Supreme Court also rejected the SLP arising out of the judgment passed in Letters Patent Appeal by this Court.

8. In view of such facts, the prayers made by the petitioner cannot be granted and the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service as the case of the petitioner is decided upto the Supreme Court. The petitioner also could not avail the benefits of regular appointment which was provided by respondent no.2 by issuing advertisement with age relaxation.

C/SCA/12691/2017 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

9. In such circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR