Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9391/1995 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9391 of 1995
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS
JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
B
N YAGNIK - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
IS SUPEHIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JASWANT K SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 15/04/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.0 By
way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the order dated 14.10.1995 passed by the respondent terminating
the service of the petitioner and to reinstate him in service with
all consequential benefits including backwages with 18% interest and
also prayed for a direction to permit the petitioner to appear in the
next examination as per law.
2.0 The
petitioner working as Deputy Registrar after having been appointed in
1991 has appeared in the examination but he has failed. The
requirement to pass the examination within two years and in three
chances. Though the petitioner is entitled to grace mark, he was not
given such grace marks. As a result of failure in the examination,
his services are terminated vide order dated 14.10.1995. The
petitioner made a representation for giving grace marks and also for
giving chance to appear in the examination which is not decided.
Hence, this petition.
3.0 Learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that as per Government
Resolution dated 19.12.1979, the petitioner is entitled to 10 grace
marks to pass the examination. He further submitted that the
Secretary of the concerned Department is empowered to give two more
grace marks. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for getting 12 marks
to pass the examination, but petitioner has not been given grace
marks.
4.0 Learned
advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the examination
held in the year 1991, 1992 and 1994. the grace marks are given in
accordance with the Government Resolution dated 01.01.1993 issued by
the General Administration Department which is binding on the
respondents. Even if the grace marks upto 5 are given in any of the
examination, the petitioner is entitled to be declared pass.
5.0 Learned
Assistant Government Pleader submitted that as per
affidavit-in-reply, the grace marks are given as per Resolution
passed by Government Diploma In Co-operation and Accountancy
Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) for a
particular year and it is discretionary power of the Board. The Board
has passed a resolution for grace marks upto 5 for the examination
held in December 1994. In pursuance of that resolution, the
petitioner’s request for grace marks could not be granted. It is
further submitted that as per Rule 13(3) of the Government Diploma In
Co-operation and Accountancy Examination Rules (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the Rules’), direct recruit co-operative officers are supposed
to pass the examination during the probationary period within two
years and in there chances. The petitioner has availed three chances
in the examination but he failed to pass the examination. Hence, the
order of termination is just and proper.
6.0 As
a result of hearing and perusal of the document on record including
affidavit-in-reply it is found that as per Rule 13(3) of the Rules,
direct recruit co-operative officers are supposed to pass the
examination during the probationary period within two years and in
three chances. The petitioner has availed three chances in the
examination but he failed to pass the examination. It is also found
that the grace marks are given as per Resolution passed by the Board
for a particular year and it is discretionary power of the Board. The
Board has passed a resolution for grace marks upto 5 for the
examination held in December 1994. In pursuance of that resolution
the petitioner’s request for grace marks could not be granted.
8.0 In
view of the above, the order of termination is just and proper. No
case is made out. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with
no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
niru*
Top