Gujarat High Court
District Development Officer , ... vs Rathva Jigneshkumar Jesangbhai on 2 May, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1137/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1137 of
2025
In F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 33058 of 2024
With
F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 33058 of 2024
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 457 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024 In F/MISC. CIVIL
APPLICATION NO. 33058 of 2024
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 457 of 2024
==========================================================
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER , CHHOTAUDEPUR
Versus
RATHVA JIGNESHKUMAR JESANGBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 12,13,14
MR PA JADEJA(3726) for the Respondent(s) No. 10
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 02/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The Review Application is delayed by 183 days, for which, no
plausible explanation has been furnished. Only explanation given for
the delay in filing the Review Application is that the Special Leave
Petition was filed by the State Government, wherein, vide order
dated 09.08.2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court permitted the State
Government to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with a liberty to
file a review before the High Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1137/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
2. A perusal of the averments in some of the paragraphs of the
Review Application indicates that vague assertions have been made
by the learned counsel for the review applicant with regard to
working of the original petitioners. However, it is pertinent to note
that a statement has been made in paragraph 3(iii) that all the
respondents herein were appointed on contract basis for a period of
11 months between the year 2003-2011.
3. From the said statement, it is evident that all the respondents
herein/original petitioners had continued in employment between
the year 2003-2011 for eight years with artificial gaps in their
contractual appointment. The continuous service of eight years was
rendered by the original petitioners during their contractual
appointment followed by a further period of five years in fixed pay
which was also completed by them before they were granted
regular pay scale in terms of the Government Resolution dated
16.02.2006.
4. The statement made in the Review Application further records
that the Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural Development
Department, vide notification dated 15.06.2011, notified the Multi-
purpose Health Workers (Male) Class-III (Panchayat Service)
Recruitment Rules, 2011 in order to provide regular recruitment to
the post of Multi-purpose Health Worker (Male) in the superior
Panchayat service, Class-III, direct recruitment, with a view to bring
an end to all contractual appointments for the post of Multi-purpose
Health Worker.
5. It is also an admitted fact of the matter that all the original
petitioners/respondents herein, who were initially appointed on
contractual basis for a period of eight years and worked
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1137/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
continuously for the said period with artificial breaks between the
year 2003-2011, had participated in the direct recruitment exercise
conducted pursuant to the Recruitment Rules, 2011 and they were
granted appointment on a fixed pay for five years after selection
which they had completed successfully till the year 2017 before
they were absorbed in the regular pay scale.
6. The insistence of the learned counsel for the review applicant
is that with the absorption of the original petitioners in the year
2017 on the regular post in terms of the Government Resolution
dated 16.02.2006 and providing them the regular pay scale after
direct recruitment, they cannot be granted the benefit of continuity
of service since the inception of their appointment. The submission
is that the benefit of the contractual service, which was with
artificial breaks, cannot be granted to the original petitioners and
their appointments on regular basis is to be considered from the
date of their regularization/absorption in the regular pay scale.
7. The submission is found wholly misconceived, for the simple
reason that there is no dispute about the facts of the present case
that all the original petitioners/respondents herein were initially
engaged on contractual basis in the year 2003 and while continuing
on the substantive post of Multi-purpose Health Worker (Male)
Class-III (Panchayat Service), they have undergone the selection
process and have been selected to the said post in terms of the
Recruitment Rules, 2011.
8. This is the reason which we have already expressed in the
judgment and order dated 23.04.2024 while dismissing the Letters
Patent Appeal upholding the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1137/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
9. Further, Mr. Kaash K. Thakkar, the learned counsel, who has
filed the Review Application on behalf of the review applicant
District Development Officer, is not the counsel, who was appearing
on behalf of the review applicant and was the respondent in the
original Writ Petition. He has filed the Review Application for the first
time seeking re-hearing in the matter on the ground that certain
aspects of the matter were not placed before the Court at the time
of hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal. A new counsel cannot be
permitted to maintain the Review Application, that too, on the
ground that certain aspects of the matter were not placed during
the course of hearing.
10. No error much less error apparent on the face of the record
could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the review
applicant. Moreover, rehearing within the scope of review is not
permitted. No good ground has been made out for review of the
aforesaid judgment. The Review Application is accordingly,
dismissed, both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits. The
Civil Application for stay does not survive and the same is also
disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
