Gujarat High Court
Manish Bansilal Bhagat vs State Of Gujarat on 16 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8604 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
MANISH BANSILAL BHAGAT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR APURVA R KAPADIA(5012) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NIRALI SARDA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1,2,3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 16/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By this petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for direction to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner on
the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) Class-III from
the date on which, the petitioner has completed 5 years of
service, that is, 13.3.2006.
2. Briefly stated are the facts:
2.1. On 3.3.2001, respondent no.1-Roads & Buildings
Department (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent no.1")
of the State Government had given an advertisement in the
local daily newspaper, namely, Gujarat Samachar inviting
applications for the post of Assistant Engineer. Pursuant to
which, the petitioner had applied on 5.3.2001. Accordingly, the
petitioner was called for interview on 11.03.2001 by the
respondent department and after conducting the selection
procedure, came to be appointed on 13.3.2001 by the
respondent no.1. The said appointment was initially for a
period of 9 months on a fixed pay of Rs.5000/- per month. It is
the case of the petitioner that along with the petitioner,
several other persons were also appointed in various Talukas
in the District Kutch.
2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
vide letter dated 12.4.2006, was pleased to transfer all the
employees, who have been appointed on the post of
Consultant to the offices of the District Collectors, who in turn,
had passed further orders. The petitioner was transferred to
the office of Mamlatdar and since then, the petitioner has been
working with the respondents without any break.
2.3. The petitioner after having put in several years of
service, made representations to the concerned respondent,
inter alia, requesting it to regularize the service of the
petitioner; however, the request of the petitioner did not yield
any result. The office of the Mamlatdar so also, the office of the
District Collector had recommended to the concerned
authorities to regularize the service of the petitioner but the
respondent no.2, vide letters dated 23.3.2012 and 17.5.2012,
did not accede to the request on the ground that the
appointment was not made by the concerned respondent and
it is impermissible for it to regularize the service of the
petitioner.
2.4. It is stated that the service of the similarly situated
employees, who were appointed along with the petitioner,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
have been regularized. One such order is dated 14.2.2008
regularizing the service of six employees of different areas
development authorities, namely, Bhachau, Bhuj, Anjar and
Rapar, in tune with the Government Resolution dated
16.2.2006. Further, the Section Officer of the Urban
Development & Urban Housing Department had also issued a
letter dated 3.5.2008 to the various development authorities,
directing them to regularize the service of the concerned
employees, who have been appointed after following due
procedure of selection. Apropos which, service of the
concerned employees was regularized on the sanctioned post.
Moreover, the Principal Secretary had also issued a letter
dated 22/27.5.2008 to the various development authorities to
act in conformity with the directions contained in the letter
dated 3.5.2008 of the concerned department. Despite such
instructions issued by the concerned department, the service
of the petitioner has not been regularized. Further, to the
shock of the petitioner, the respondent no.1 vide letter dated
27.06.2011 addressed to the office of the Mamlatdar, informed
that considering the nature of the initial appointment of the
petitioner, his service cannot be regularized by respondent
no.1.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
2.5. In support of such grievance, reliance is placed on
various orders passed by this Court to contend that though the
petitioner is similarly situated, the respondents have not
bothered to regularize the service of the petitioner despite the
fact that the petitioner has been appointed after following due
procedure. It is therefore, urged that the petition deserves to
be accepted and necessary directions be issued to the
respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner in
conformity with the Government Resolution dated 16.2.2006.
3. The respective respondents have filed their replies. So far
as the reply filed by the respondent no.1 is concerned, it is,
inter alia, stated that the petitioner was appointed on the post
of Bhukamp Awas Bandhkam Nirikshak vide appointment order
dated 13.3.2001 and the said appointment order clearly
carried the stipulation that the tenure would end on
31.12.2001. There is a further stipulation in the appointment
order that the appointee shall not claim any benefits flowing
from the said appointment order so also, any permanency. The
reply further states that the appointment of the petitioner was
extended from time to time, that is, up to the year 2006 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
thereafter, there was no further extension accorded to the
petitioner. While distinguishing the orders passed by the Urban
Development & Urban Housing Department, regularizing the
service of the six employees, it is stated that no such order
regularizing the service of any of the employees has been
passed by the Roads & Buildings Department and therefore,
considering the nature of initial appointment of the petitioner
his service cannot be regularized. Therefore, the petitioner
cannot, as a matter of right, claim regularization.
3.1 It is also pointed out that vide Government Resolution
dated 12.4.2006, the respondent no.1 had resolved to transfer
all the employees working on the post of Bhukamp Awas
Bandhkam Nirikshak to the office of the District Collector and
thereafter, the employees are under the supervision and
control of the concerned Collectorate offices of District Bhuj. It
is clarified that the petitioner was serving as Bhukamp Awas
Bandhkam Nirikshak and not as an Additional Assistant
Engineer (Class-III) and therefore also, the request to
regularize the service could not have been accepted.
4. So far as the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
concerned, except stating about sending proposals to the
concerned offices, recommending regularization of service,
nothing more has been pointed out. So far as the respondent
No.3 is concerned, it has disowned the responsibility on the
ground that it is only an implementing authority constituted
under the Disaster Management Act.
5. Mr.Apurva Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner
has submitted that the advertisement was issued in the local
daily newspaper Gujarat Samachar, inviting applications from
the eligible candidates for being appointed to the post of
Assistant Engineer (Class-III) on contractual basis. Pursuant to
the said advertisement, the petitioner had applied and was
since selected, issued identification number being
I.D.No.B2675 on 11.3.2001 followed by Office Order no.434
dated 13.3.2001. It is submitted that though the appointment
was initially up to 31.12.2001, the same has been thereafter,
extended from time to time and by now, the petitioner has
rendered more than 20 years of service.
5.1. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed by the
duly constituted Selection Committee of the State Government
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
and that too, after issuing advertisement in the newspaper.
The appointment of the petitioner was made after getting
necessary approval of the State Government which is clear
from the communication dated 13.3.2001 of the Chairman,
Selection Committee & Superintending Engineer. The
appointment of the petitioner was after going through the
selection procedure and therefore, it cannot be said that his
appointment was a back door entry. However, the respondents
did not regularize the service of the petitioner; such action on
the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5.2. It is next submitted that the petitioner was selected
against the sanctioned post and having completed 5 years of
service, the respondent ought to have regularized the service
of the petitioner, considering the Government Resolution dated
16.2.2006 issued by the Finance Department, as it provides for
regularization of the service upon completion of satisfactory
service of 5 years in Class-III or Class-IV. It is submitted that, in
past, the respondents have regularized the service of similar
such employees in tune with the Government Resolution dated
16.2.2006. Also, the petitioner possesses an unblemished
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
career as, neither is any departmental inquiry pending nor the
petitioner had received any adverse remarks in his Annual
Confidential Report. Therefore, there is no reason available to
the respondents to deny regularization to the petitioner.
5.3. It is next submitted that as can be culled from the
communications issued by the office of the Mamlatdar so also,
the office of the District Collector, it had recommended
regularization of the service of the petitioner, citing the
reasons that the petitioner has been very sincere in his work
and his case deserves consideration. However, despite there
being positive recommendation by the concerned offices, the
respondents have shifted the responsibility of taking any
favorable decision. So far as the respondent no.1 is concerned,
it is not accepting the request of regularization only on the
ground that it had only made the initial appointment. It is
further submitted that it is the Respondent no.1 who had
transferred the whole setup to the office of the Collector and
because of this there appears to be a fight between the
departments of State Government as well as the office of the
Collector. Owing to such fight, the petitioner is made to suffer.
It is therefore, urged that considering the nature of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
appointment of the petitioner by the respondent no.1 and the
tenure for which the petitioner has served, his service
deserves to be regularized.
5.4. It is submitted that the State Government vide
Government Resolution dated 14.2.2008 has regularized the
service of other similarly situated employees, who were
appointed along with the petitioner and therefore, when the
State Government has regularized their service there is no
reason available to the respondents not to regularize the
service of the petitioner on the similar lines. Reliance is placed
on the communication dated 3.5.2008 to contend that even
the Section Officer of the Urban Development & Urban Housing
Department has issued necessary instructions that considering
the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 16.2.2006,
the employees concerned, who have been appointed after
following recruitment process on contractual basis, should be
regularized. Therefore, the petitioner also deserves the same
treatment.
5.5. Mr.Apurva Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner
has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
the case of Rohanbhai Premjibhai Hadia vs. State of Gujarat
rendered in Special Civil Application No.9523 of 2009 to
contend that this Court, in similar set of facts, has directed
regularization. Further, the said order was carried in appeal
being Letters Patent Appeal No.1453 of 2010, which came to
be dismissed and the Special leave Petition against the order
of Division Bench was also dismissed vide order dated
2.4.2012, and therefore, the oral order passed by this Hon'ble
Court governs the field.
5.6. Reliance is placed on the oral judgment dated 26.9.2014
passed by this Court in Civil Application (For Direction)
No.10457 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No.11020 of
2010. It is submitted that the petitioner therein was appointed
pursuant to the advertisement which was issued in the year
2001 as Surveyor in the year 2004. This Court, while referring
to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1,
has directed regularization of the petitioner therein; however,
with the clarification that the service will be regularized not
from the date of inception but, from the date, the service of
the juniors of the petitioner therein were regularized.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
5.7. Further reliance is placed on the oral order dated
23.2.2016 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application
No.16634 of 2012. It is submitted that the petitioner therein
was also appointed pursuant to the same advertisement on the
post of Additional Engineer and was subsequently appointed to
the post of Surveyor. This Court, after considering the order
dated 21.12.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No.9523
of 2009 as well as the affidavits filed by the respective
respondents, directed the respondents therein to consider the
case of the petitioner therein for regularization. It is
vehemently submitted that the case of the petitioner is akin to
the case of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16634
of 2012 and therefore the petitioner should be accorded parity
in the matter of regularization.
5.8. Further reliance is also placed on the recent oral order
dated 5.4.2021 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application
No.8601 of 2012, which has been confirmed in Letters Patent
Appeal No.592 of 2022 decided on 2.5.2022. It is vehemently
submitted that the case of the petitioner is akin to the case of
the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.8601 of 2012,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
wherein, in paragraph 15, this Court has held and observed as
under :
"15. Under the circumstances, the respondent no.1, in consultation
with the concerned departments namely, Revenue Department and
Urban Development & Urban Housing Department of the State
Government, are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization. The concerned authorities shall take decision in
terms of this judgment within a period of four months from today. It
is expected that the authorities will take positive decision, ensuring
that there is no second round of litigation."
5.9. It is therefore, urged that the appointment of the
petitioner being after following the due procedure, the
respondents are required to be issued necessary directions for
regularizing the service of the petitioner.
6. Per contra Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondent - State, submitted that
after the devastated earthquake, which shook the State of
Gujarat, it undertook reconstruction and rehabilitation
programmes and for such purpose, the respondent no.1, that
is, Roads & Buildings Department, had introduced the project
called "Gujarat Emergency Earthquake Reconstruction
Programme". For the said purpose, several employees were
appointed including the present petitioner on the post of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
Bhukamp Awas Bandhkam Nirikshak vide appointment order
dated 13.3.2001. The petitioner was appointed for a limited
tenure, that is, up to 31.12.2001, with a clear stipulation that it
would stand automatically discontinued; however, the same
was extended from time to time. But the fact remains that the
petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and upon
completion of the said period, no right has accrued in favour of
the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was never
recruited after following due procedure or for that matter as
per statutory recruitment Rules and therefore, once the
appointment of the petitioner was not as per the recruitment
Rules, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, seek
regularization.
6.1. It is submitted that since the work could not get over and
the tenure of the project was extended vide Resolution dated
26.12.2001, initial for one month followed by further extension
so also the contractual appointments but till 31.08.2005. It is
further submitted thereafter, the Roads & Buildings
Department issued Government Resolution dated 12.4.2006
resolving that all the employees working on the post of
Bhukamp Awas Bandhkam Nirikshak be transferred to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
concerned office of the Collector. It is therefore, submitted that
in view of the Government Resolution dated 12.4.2006, the
respondent no.1 was the appointing authority only for the
limited period and thereafter, the employees were under the
control and supervision of the office of the Collector, District
Bhuj.
6.2. It is submitted that so far as the regularization of the
service of the similarly situated employees is concerned, the
same was issued by the Urban Development & Urban Housing
Department and not by the Roads & Buildings Department,
which had never issued any order regularizing the service of
any employees. While emphasizing it is submitted that the
post on which the petitioner was serving was temporary post,
created for the specific project and for the limited purpose and
therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was not on the
sanctioned post. It is further submitted that since the
petitioner was appointed on contractual basis, he has no right,
much less, any legal or fundamental right, to seek direction
from this Court for regularization of his service.
6.3. It is therefore, urged that the petition being devoid of any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
merits, deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard Mr. Apurva Kapadia, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondents.
8. Perceptibly, the advertisement dated 3.3.2001 was
issued in the local daily newspaper Gujarat Samachar by the
Chairman, Selection Committee & Superintending Engineer
inviting applications from all the eligible candidates for being
appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (Class-III) on
contractual basis for 11 months. The said advertisement
pertains to the earthquake affected areas, namely, Kutch,
Jamnagar, Surendranagar, Rajkot etc. Apropos the said
advertisement, the State Government in its Roads & Buildings
Department appears to have issued Government Resolution
dated 8.3.2001 selecting the candidates for being appointed to
the post of Surveyor (Assistant Engineer) and on 9.3.2001, the
list was sent to all the Executive Engineers of District Kheda.
Thereafter, the Chairman, Selection Committee &
Superintending Engineer addressed a communication dated
11.3.2001 to the Executive Engineer, Kheda informing that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
selected candidates shall be asked to remain present on
13.3.2001 along with all the necessary certificates and they be
assigned identification number.
9. Pursuant to the communication dated 13.03.2001, the
petitioner was assigned identification number being
I.D.No.B2675 dated 11.3.2001 followed by the office order
no.434 dated 13.3.2001 issued by the Chairman, Selection
Committee & Superintending Engineer, Roads & Buildings
Department, Gandhinagar, appointing the petitioner on
contractual basis for 11 months. Copy of the order was
endorsed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban
Development & Urban Housing Department of the State
Government. As per one of the conditions, the selected
candidates were to undergo training and petitioner did it, for
which, the Executive Engineer, Engineering Staff College,
Gandhinagar had issued a certificate dated 13.3.2001,
certifying that the petitioner has undergone the training.
Therefore, the chain of events clearly suggest that the
appointment of the petitioner was made after the requisite
approval by the State Government in its Roads & Buildings
Department, vide Government Resolution dated 8.3.2001. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
record further reveals that the said appointment was extended
from time to time and the petitioner is still continued and
presently working with the office of Rapar Area Development
Authority, Rapar.
10. Further, as is discernible from the record, the State
Government in its Roads & Buildings Department had issued a
Government Resolution dated 12.4.2006, discontinuing the
establishment, which was created for reconstruction and
rehabilitation of the earthquake affected areas. As per the
condition no.3, all the offices of the Sub-Division were closed
down and the employees working on the contractual basis as
surveyor/consultant were assigned to the District
Panchayat/offices of the Collectors. Condition no.4 provided
that the surveyor/consultant, who have been assigned to the
offices of the District Panchayat as well as the Collector, their
pay and other perks would be at the hands of the respective
District Panchayat/office of the Collector. Therefore, till the
year 2006, the service of the petitioner was continued on
contractual basis and upon closure of the said project, the
petitioner and other employees were allotted to the office of
the respective District Panchayats/offices of the Collectors.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
Pertinently, the petitioner initially had worked with the office of
Executive Engineer, Earthquake (R&B) Bhachau, and thereafter
with the office of the Mamaltdar and currently with the office of
Rapar Area Development Authority, Rapar. There is no dispute
so far as the aforesaid facts are concerned.
11. As is discernible from the record, employees, who were
appointed in similar set of facts, the State Government in its
Urban Development & Urban Housing Department, had issued
Government Resolutions regularizing the service of the
employees concerned, who were appointed on contractual
basis. One such Government Resolution is dated 14.2.2008
regularizing the service of the six employees on regular
establishment. The sole obstacle, which the respondent has
spelled out in its affidavit is that since the initial appointment
of the petitioner was by the Roads & Buildings Department and
in the year 2006, the petitioner having been assigned to the
office of the Collector, it will not be its responsibility; rather it
would not be the obligation of the Roads & Buildings
Department to regularize the service of the petitioner. The said
approach on the part of the respondent authorities is clearly
impermissible inasmuch as, the petitioner, as is clear from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
record, was appointed after following the procedure by the
Chairman, Selection Committee & Superintending Engineer.
Strictly speaking, the appointment of the petitioner was not as
per the statutory Rules; however, the same cannot be termed
as an illegal appointment. At the most, the appointment of the
petitioner can be said to be an irregular appointment.
Therefore, once the Court finds that the appointment of the
petitioner was not illegal but irregular, the principle enunciated
by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. M L
Kesari reported in (2010)9 SCC 247 squarely applies. The Apex
Court in the said case, has held that where the appointments
are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where
the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum
qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be
illegal. But, where the person employed possessed the
prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned
posts, had been selected without undergoing the process of
competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be
irregular.
12. Therefore, as discussed hereinabove, the petitioner being
found eligible in all respect was appointed by duly constituted
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
Selection Committee of Chairman & Superintendent (Roads &
Buildings) Circle Ghandinagar. Besides, this Court, in similar
set of facts, has directed regularization of the service of the
employees. One such order is dated 21.12.2009 rendered in
Special Civil Application No.9523 of 2009. In another oral
judgment dated 26.9.2014, in the case of Dipesh Bharatbhai
Joshi vs. State of Gujarat, rendered in Civil Application No.
10457 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 11020 of 2010,
this Court has directed regularization of the service.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 whereof, read as under:
"2. Having considered the rival contentions there does not appear
to be a dispute on the fact that the petitioners were appointed
through set recruitment procedure as Surveyors w.e.f 15 th June
2004. In the Civil Application an order dated 30 th October 2013
regularising various similarly situated Surveyors has been produced
and there does not appear to be a serious dispute that the
petitioners also can be regularised in terms of the said order. Even
otherwise this Court has been consistent in its view that regularly
selected employees cannot be continued for long on contractual,
adhoc or temporary basis and they are required to be regularised.
Even in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V. Umadevi & Ors (AIR
2006 SC1806), the Apex Court emphasised the need for
regularisation of such employees and deprecated the practice of
making appointments on permanent post on contractual or on
adhoc basis for long time.
3. In above view of the matter the petition is required to be allowed
partly as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, to an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
effect that the petitioner will be regularised not from the date of
inception in service but from the date his juniors were regularised.
Accordingly the petition is partly allowed in above terms and the
petitioner shall be regularised in terms of the order dated 30th
October 2013. The decision to regularise the petitioner will be taken
by the respondent preferably within a period of six weeks from
today. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct service is
permitted."
13. In paragraph 2, there is a reference of order dated
30.10.2013 whereby service of various surveyors has been
regularized. Following the aforesaid two judgments, this Court
vide judgment dated 23.2.2016 has directed the State
Government to regularize the service of the petitioner therein.
The petitioner therein was appointed pursuant to the very
same advertisement issued in the local daily newspaper on the
post of Additional Engineer (Civil) and was thereafter
appointed to the post of Surveyor. The grievance raised
therein was that he was serving past sixteen years on
contractual basis and despite request being made to the
authorities, his service was not regularized. This Court, while
allowing the writ petition, has observed thus:
"Perhaps, the only ground put forward for not regularizing the
services of the petitioner is that he was appointed for a brief period
only with a view to meet with the exigencies that arose on account
of the devastating earthquake. If that would have been so,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
probably, he would not have been continued for sixteen years at a
stretch. On one ground or the other, this petition is sought to be
opposed. It is now submitted that his performance is not
satisfactory. It is also submitted that one FIR was registered against
him for the offence of forgery. It is pointed out that the
investigation resulted in filing of a 'C' summary report by the
Investigating Officer and the learned Magistrate has accepted the
'C' summary. Of course, a revision seems to have been filed in the
Sessions Court against the order of the learned Magistrate
accepting the 'C' summary.
I take notice of the fact that many employees in the establishment
who were appointed along with the petitioner at the relevant point
of time have all been regularized. It seems that the work is still
there, otherwise the petitioner would not have been continued all
these years in service.
In the result, the respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider
the case of the petitioner for regularization, more particularly, in
view of the order which was passed by this Court dated 21 st
December 2009 referred to above. An appropriate decision shall be
taken in this regard with necessary order within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order.
The respondent nos.2 and 3 are also directed to take into
consideration the judgment and order passed by this Court dated
4th February 2016 in Special Civil Application No.10829 of 2003 and
allied matters, wherein this Court has considered the law on the
subject of regularization at length.
I expect the authorities to take a positive decision keeping in mind
the judgments referred to above. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are
also directed to consider the order dated 26 th September 2014
passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Application No.10457 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
2014 in Special Civil Application No.11020 of 2010 and allied
matters.
I expect the authorities concerned to ensure that there is no second
round of litigation.
With the above, this writ- application is disposed of. Direct service is
permitted."
It has been reported that pursuant to the aforesaid directions
contained in the judgment dated 23.2.2016, the service of the
petitioner therein, who was working with the office of Rapar
Area Development Authority has been regularized, by passing
necessary orders. The case of the petitioner is identical to the
case of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16634 of
2012 and therefore, the case of the petitioner deserves
consideration on similar lines.
14. Considering the facts discussed herein above so also, the
directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid judgments,
there is no reason available to this Court to take a different
view than the aforesaid views taken by this Court, more
particularly, when the petitioner also has been appointed in
the year 2001 after following the procedure and by duly
constituted Selection Committee. Furthermore, the said order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
was approved by the State Government vide Government
Resolution dated 8.3.2001 and it is only thereafter that the
appointment was effected. The continuation of the petitioner
from the year 2001, till date, also buttress the fact that the
service of the petitioner is still required by the authorities
concerned. Also, the recommendations made by the office of
the Mamlatdar so also, the Deputy Collector strengthens the
fact about requirement of service of the petitioner and
therefore, in absence of any strong justification assigned by
the respondents, for not regularizing the service of the
petitioner, the case of the petitioner also needs consideration
in line with directions contained in the judgments passed by
this Court in the aforementioned writ petitions.
15. Under the circumstances, the respondent no.1, in
consultation with the concerned departments namely, Revenue
Department and Urban Development & Urban Housing
Department of the State Government, are directed to consider
the case of the petitioner for regularization. The concerned
authorities shall take decision in terms of this judgment within
a period of four months from today. It is expected that the
authorities will take positive decision, ensuring that there is no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8604/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
second round of litigation.
16. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the petition is
partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
No order as to cost.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
