Gujarat High Court
District Education Officer, Surat ... vs Indravadan Bhupatsinh Solanki on 17 January, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5965/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5965 of
2024
In F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 34028 of 2024
With
F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 34028 of 2024
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 441 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024 In F/MISC. CIVIL
APPLICATION NO. 34028 of 2024
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 441 of 2023
==========================================================
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SURAT DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
Versus
INDRAVADAN BHUPATSINH SOLANKI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SIDDHARTH R KHESKANI(9483) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 14,15,16,17
MR PA JADEJA(3726) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 17/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. There is a delay of 226 days in filing the Review Application
and the only ground raised therein is that the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the decision mentioned in the application seeking for condonantion
of delay has condoned the delay of even 654 days in filing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5965/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
Special Leave Petition. The another ground seeking condonation of
delay is the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Division Bench in
the Letters Patent Appeal No.1557 of 2024, wherein the Letters
Patent Appeal has been disposed of subject to the final order in
Review Petition being Misc. Civil Application No.27969 of 2024 in
Letters Patent Appeal No.1325 of 2022 with the observation that the
parties shall be governed by the final decision passed in the Review
Application unless modified/confirmed or set aside by the Higher
Forum. Both the grounds taken to seek condonation of delay in filing
the Review Application are found to be misconceived.
2. On the merits of the Review Application, it is a wholly
misconceived application filed for review of the judgment and order
dated 19.03.2024 passed in the Letters Patent Appeal No.441 of
2023. The sole ground to seek a review of the aforesaid judgment is
that the original petitioners were appointed on a regular basis after
participating in the selection process as per the Recruitment Rules,
2011 and they were given fresh appointments. The submission is
that their cases cannot considered for regularization of services
from the date of their initial appointment, as after regular selection,
it was a fresh appointment and there has been delay on the part of
the petitioners in challenging the said action of the respondents.
3. Be that as it may, from the statements made in the Review
Application itself, it is evident that the original
petitioners/respondents herein were appointed on contract basis
between the year 2003-2011 for a period of 11 months in each
appointment, thereby creating artificial breaks in the continuous
service of the original petitioners working on the post of Multi-
purpose Health Worker (Male) Class-III (Panchayat Service). Further
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5965/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
statement is that vide notification dated 15.06.2011, the Panchayat,
Rural Housing and Rural Development Department notified the
Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male) Class-III (Panchayat Service)
Recruitment Rules, 2011 providing for regular appointment to the
post of Multi-purpose Health Worker (Male) in the superior
Panchayat service, Class-III by direct recruitment, with a view to
bring an end to all contractual appointment for the post of Multi-
purpose Health Worker. Pursuant to the said notification, the regular
recruitment examination was conducted with the Advertisement
No.1/2011-2012 by the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board.
In the recruitment process, all the original petitioners/respondents
herein were selected and they were given appointment on a fixed
pay for a period of five years, on the premise that their appointment
would be fresh appointment to the post in question. While working
as such, the original petitioners were absorbed in the regular pay
scale in the year 2017 in terms of the Government Resolution dated
16.02.2006. It is evident that all the petitioners have been selected
on regular basis on the post, on which, they were initially appointed
on contact basis. Their earlier appointments on the post of Multi-
purpose Health Worker (Male) on contractual basis with artificial
breaks are not liable to be ignored in view of the fact that all the
original petitioners have been selected on regular basis in continuity
of their contractual appointment. The grant of benefit of
regularization, ignoring the condition of appointment letter of the
petitioners by direct selection that their appointment is a fresh
appointment, cannot be said to be suffering from any error of law.
For this reasoning, we have refused to interfere in the order passed
by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Letters Patent
Appeal No.441 of 2023 by the judgment and order dated
19.03.2024.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5965/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
4. In view of the above, the Review Application is dismissed both
on the grounds of inordinate unexplained delay as well as on merits.
The connected Civil Application for stay does not survive and the
same is also disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
