Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5795/2010 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5795 of 2010
=========================================================
DR.
GOVINDPRASAD GUPTA & 21 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PR NANAVATI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 22.
MR JK SHAH, LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Respondent(s) : 3 -
6.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 10/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of present petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for
directing the concerned respondent to treat the services of the
petitioners as continuous service from their original date of
appointments as per the table at Annexure-A to the petition and
thereby to grant them all the service benefits, emoluments, etc.
attached to a regularly appointed employees by treating the
petitioners as continuous from their original date of appointments
as if the petitioners have never been terminated by giving
artificial break and are in continuous service as well as directing
the concerned respondents to continue services of the petitioners at
their present post until regularly selected GPSC candidates are made
available.
It
is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as ad-hoc
lecturers in pursuance of the advertisement, which was followed by
the interview. It is submitted that the petitioners were initially
appointed for a period of six months. However, vide Government
Resolution dated 03rd March 2009, the appointment of the
petitioners was further extended for a period of six months by
giving retrospective effect since the petitioners were already
continuing in their service and posts on the date when the said
Government Resolution was passed.
It
is further the case of the petitioners that after the said extension
was granted, as per their joining dates in ordinary course
petitioners’ services were required to be terminated on completion
of one year. However, general enmasse termination order was passed
by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the petitioners were issued
termination letters dated 19th August 2009 by giving
effect of the said termination retrospectively though the
petitioners have already served with respondent Nos.5 and 6 upto
19th August 2009, which was made on the basis of the
communication dated 17th August 2009 issued by respondent
No.1 to respondent Nos.5 and 6.
It
is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter the respondent
No.1 issued Government Resolution dated 29th August 2009
by further extending services of the petitioners and other similarly
situated persons for a period of one year. Since the petitioners did
not get any clarification from respondent No.1 and since appointment
of the petitioners pursuant to the resolution/ circular dated 29th
August 2009 was treated as fresh appointments, the petitioners
along with other similarly situated appointees made representation
dated 25th September 2009 to the respondent No.2 to
consider their services as continuous from the date of their
appointment. Thus, the petitioners are put to a disadvantageous
situation in respect of service benefits. Hence, the present
petition.
Having
considered the contentions raised by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners
and on perusal of the documents on record, it clearly transpires
that the petitioners
are appointed as ad-hoc lecturers for a specified period of 11
months, subject to a rider that if prior thereto, regularly selected
candidates through the process of selection to be undertaken by the
GPSC were available, the services of the petitioners
as lecturers would be put an end to before the expiry of the said
period of 11 months.
It
is pertinent to note that the very first relief claimed by the
petitioners is with respect to regularizing their services. It is
required to be noted that such a relief cannot be granted to the
petitioners since the petitioners are not appointed by following due
process of law by the GPSC. Further, it is the prerogative of the
respondent-employer to extend the service tenure of the petitioners
and the same cannot be availed as a right.
During
the course of hearing today, an endeavour is made by the learned
advocate for the petitioner by pointing out the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal
No.1053 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.4651 of 2010 with
Civil Application No.4801 of 2010, whereby the order passed by this
Court in Special Civil Application No.4651 of 2010 has been quashed
and set aside. It would be beneficial to reproduce the said order as
under :
On
instructions of Mr. G.H.Upadhaya, Dy. Director, Technical Education,
Gandhinagar, who is present in the Court, learned AGP, Mr. N.J.Shah,
stated that service of the appellants herein will not be terminated
till the regular process of recruitment for filling up the posts in
question is carried out and the candidates pursuant to said selection
process are available for regular appointment. Upon that statement
being made and recorded, the appeal was not pressed for any further
relief except to formally set aside the impugned order dated
19.04.2010 of learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.
4651 of 2010. That order is however, already set aside in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 991 of 2010. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
The impugned order already is set aside and the respondents are
directed to abide by the statement recorded hereinabove. It is
clarified that the appellants would be at liberty to participate in
the process of regular recruitment, if they fulfill the conditions
therefor.
Civil
Application would not survive in view of the above order disposing
the appeal. Accordingly, the application is disposed and rule is
discharged with no order as to costs.
Looking
to the above cited order passed by the Division Bench of this Court,
it transpires that the order passed by the learned Single Judge has
been quashed and set aside on the statement made by the officer of
the respondent-State and the said matter has not been decided on
merits of the matter. The statement made therein cannot be taken as
having general application in all the cases including the present
one since no such statement is made in the present case.
Further
in view of the observations made and directions issued by this Court
(Coram : M.R. Shah, J) while dealing with Special Civil Application
No.5797 of 2009 and allied matters, vide judgment dated 30th
June 2009, while dealing with an identical issue in respect of
similarly situated employees, the present petitioners have no right
to continue on the post of lecturers. It is pertinent to note that
when the similar issue has already been decided by this Court, they
have no right to continue on the post in question beyond the
stipulated date. Further, even as per the ratio laid down in the
case of Secretary, State
of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, reported in (2006) 4
SCC 1,
the petitioners are not entitled to the post in question beyond
stipulated period. Thus, I am of the opinion that the present
petition is misconceived and the same is devoid of any substance and
merit. Hence, the same deserves to be dismissed.
In
view of aforesaid, the present petition fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed summarily.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top