Sadhu Pooja Ghanshyambhai vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 8077 Guj

    C/SCA/11991/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11991 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                       SADHU POOJA GHANSHYAMBHAI
                                  Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.SOAHAM JOSHI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                             Date : 16/09/2022

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Soaham Joshi

learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule

on behalf of the respondent State.

C/SCA/11991/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2022

2. With the consent of the learned advocate for

the respective parties, the present petition is

taken up for final hearing.

3. In this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the prayer of the

petitioner is seeking direction to the

respondent to consider the service of the

petitioner to be continuous from the date of

appointment i.e., from 13.08.2013 and confer

all the consequential service benefits including

the confirmation of service with regular pay

scale as provided under order dated

17.11.2018 as well as the benefit of seniority

and promotion and necessary increments and

all other consequential benefits considering

her service continuous from the date of

appointment i.e., from 13.08.2013, since

petitioner's services were terminated on

C/SCA/11991/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2022

account of her not passing the CCC

examination within the time frame so

stipulated.

4. Facts in brief would indicate that the

petitioner was appointed as a Forest Assistant

Guard by way of an order dated 13.08.2013.

One of the conditions in the order indicated

that the petitioner was required to clear the

CCC examination within two years from the

date of her appointment. Undisputedly, the

petitioner continued uninterruptedly in service

and an order was passed on 17.11.2018 by

which his appointment came to be confirmed

on regular pay scale with effect from

14.08.2018 on Ad-hoc basis. The order of

regularizing the service stipulated a condition

that the petitioner will have to clear his CCC

examination within two years i.e., by

C/SCA/11991/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2022

13.08.2020. Admittedly the petitioner filled his

form to appear in the examination within time

but the examinations were not conducted in

time. By the order dated 13.08.2020, the

petitioner's services were terminated on the

ground that the petitioner was not entitled to

be retained in service beyond 13.08.2020 on

account of she having not passed the CCC

examination within time. The examination was

conducted on 20.09.2020 and the petitioner

had cleared the examination. The petitioner

had preferred Special Civil Application No.

9649 of 2020 challenging the order dated

13.08.2020. However, since, the petitioner was

taken back to service the said petition came to

be withdrawn by the petitioner.

5. Mr. Jigar Gadhvi would submit that for no fault

of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be

C/SCA/11991/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2022

penalized though she filled in the form for the

CCC examination in time, it was only in

September 2020 examination was conducted

and the results were declared.

6. Mr.Joshi learned AGP would oppose the

petition and by submitting that the respondent

authorities were justified in putting an end to

the service of the petitioner.

7. Considering the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the respective parties,

what is evident is that the petitioner was

appointed on regular pay by way of order

dated 17.11.2018. Admittedly the order

stipulated that the petitioner should pass the

CCC examination on or before 13.08.2020. The

examinations were held in September 2020

and the results were also declared in the same

C/SCA/11991/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2022

month i.e., the results were declared after the

month from outer limit for which the petitioner

could be retained in service and thus, no fault

can be found of the petitioner.

8. In view of the above, the order of termination

shall not operate and the petitioner shall be

treated to have been in continuous service

from the date of his appointment. The period

from 13.08.2020 to 25.09.2020 shall not be

treated as break for all purposes.

9. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

Direct service is permitted.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) ANKIT SHAH