ORDER
Jayant Patel, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred the petition for appropriate writ to treat the petitioner as permanently recruited tutor/medical officer and the petitioner has prayed to quash the action of respondents of treating the petitioner as temporary employee and the petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondents to reconsider the order dated 11.4.2007 of transferring the petitioner from Vadodara to Rajkot.
2. Mr. Majmudar, learned Counsel for the petitioner declared before the Court that the petitioner is not pressing the challenge made against the transfer order.
3. In view of the above, the prayer made for challenging the transfer order is not required to be considered.
4. So far as the prayer for treating the petitioner as permanent employee and regularly recruited employee is concerned, the same is running counter to the appointment order dated 14.6.1994, which is produced by the petitioner at Annexure “B”. It appears that as per the appointment order, which is pressed in service by the petitioner, the petitioner is appointed as tutor on purely temporary and adhoc basis. Therefore, it is not a case where regular recruitment process is undertaken and thereafter the petitioner is appointed. Therefore, since the petitioner has not undergone the regular selection process when the appointment order dated 14.6.1994 was issued, it cannot be said that the petitioner has undergone regular selection process and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as permanent employee as sought to be canvassed. The reference may be made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of adhoc temporary lecturer in case of “Shri K.D. Vora v. Kamleshbhai Gobarbhai Patel” , wherein the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court is that the adhoc appointee to the post, though might have continued for a long period, can be terminated on availability of the regularly selected candidate.
5. However, Mr. Majmudar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the condition of the appointment order, the petitioner has to apply to GPSC when the post is advertised by the Commission. The xerox of the original copy of appointment order produced by Mr. Majmudar shows that the last condition reads as under:
They should apply to the Gujarat Public Service Commission when the post is advertised by the Commission in future. If they fail to apply or fails to appear for interview or if they are not selected by the Commission then their services will be liable to be terminated forthwith.
6. The surprising aspect is that in the typed document, which is produced at the first hearing before this Court, it is typed as under:
They should apply to the Gujarat Public Service Commission when the post is advertised by the Commission then their service will be liable to be terminated forthwith.
7. It is prima facie a clear case of non-production of the correct document in the proceedings of this Court. However, Mr. Majumudar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is stated in the petition that such condition as per the original order is in operation. He also submitted that the petitioner has already applied for the post, but he was placed in the wait list since the posts of S.C. Candidates were not available and in the subsequent examination, the petitioner has not passed the same.
8. If the first communication is considered, copy whereof is produced at Annexure “E”, the name of the petitioner is at Sr. No. 16 in the wait list of S.C. Candidates. Therefore, the petitioner is not selected by GPSC. The condition does not provide that the examination is to be passed, but it provides for selection by GPSC, which has not happened in the present case and the said aspect is apparent from the document produced by the petitioner at Annexure “E” dated 15.4.1997. The contention that the examination was passed of GPSC and, therefore, the petitioner can be said to have complied with the above referred condition is, ex facie, misconceived and cannot be accepted.
9. Further, it is also an admitted position that as per the petitioner, in response to the subsequent advertisement, the petitioner applied to GPSC for selection and he has not passed the said examination. Under these circumstances, as the petitioner has not complied with the said condition of selection by GPSC, the petitioner cannot claim the right as that of permanent employee of the regularly selected employee.
10. Hence, no case is made out for interference. Therefore, dismissed.