JUDGMENT
S.K. Keshote, J.
1. The petitioner, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 18/2/95, under which he was ordered to be reverted from the post of clerk-cum-typist to that of cleaner.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 6/4/84, the petitioner was given appointment as a cleaner by respondents. Under the letter dated 17/2/88, the petitioner was asked to fill in the form for undergoing training for the pre-qualifying examination for the post of clerk. He applied for undergoing this training and he cleared the training as well as passed the examination. Under the order dated 28/9/89, the petitioner was posted as junior clerk purely on ad-hoc and temporary basis. This ad-hoc and temporary posting of the petitioner as junior clerk was extended from time to time and the last order as per the case of the petitioner for extension of his posting on the post aforesaid was made on 17/3/90. He continued as a junior clerk till 24/3/92. On this date, he was given appointment on the post of clerk-cum-typist and under the order dated 7/7/94, the petitioner was continued on the said post till further orders. On 19/9/94, the petitioner was ordered to be reverted to the post of cleaner. However, this order was withdrawn subsequently under the order dated 21/9/94. Under the impugned order, he was ordered to be reverted to the post of cleaner. Hence this Special Civil Application before this court.
3. Reply to the Special Civil Application has not been filed by respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the petitioner was given posting on the post of clerk-cum-typist, he could not have been reverted back to the post of cleaner and that too, without any notice and opportunity of hearing.
5. This petition is filed in the year 1995 and after about 4 years it has come up for hearing in the court. It is a fact to be noticed that this petition was admitted by this court on 7/4/95 and some Government advocate was also present in the court on that day but nobody has cared to file reply to this Special Civil Application till day. I fail to see what is the modus operandi of Government in these matters, which are coming up before this court. There seems to be some internal policy, though publicly it is projected to the people that it has provided an institution to defend the litigation filed against it but in fact it appears not to be interested to defend the matters. This inference falls from the fact that in substantial number of cases the replies are not filed and even the counsel for the respondents are not present in the court. In this case not only reply of the respondents is not there on the record but nobody is present on their behalf to make even oral submissions. It appears to be a case where on one hand the State of Gujarat and its officers pass some orders adverse to the employees and on the other hand assures the employee to go to the court and get a decision in their favour as they are not opposing the Special Civil Application. If that is the modus operandi then it is not only a clear fraud on the Constitution but unnecessarily heavy burden on the public exchequer. This institution (Government Advocates Office) then has to be closed down. If the matters are to be decided by the Court without there being any representation of the respondents, it will do it and what it is doing but it is difficult to appreciate that the State Government spends huge money for this so-called system of defending the cases filed against it in the courts.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. If we go by the documents filed by the petitioner on the record, I find that he was given purely ad-hoc promotion under the order dated 28.9.89 on the post of Junior Clerk for 29 days. The petitioner has not produced on the record of this Special Civil Application any order to show that ad-hoc promotion was ordered to be continued beyond 11/10/89. Then come the next document the order at Annexure B dated 17/3/90 of the respondent under which the petitioner again was given the ad-hoc promotion on the post of Junior Clerk for the period of 28 days. It appears that thereafter he was continued beyond the period of 12/4/90 but I do not find anything on the record in support of what the petitioner contends that he continued till 24/3/92. Be that as it may. Under the order dated 24/3/92 the petitioner has been given purely ad-hoc promotion on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist (Gujarati) for one year. Under the order dated 7/6/94 this ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner was cancelled. However later on this order of the cancellation of the promotion has been cancelled but ultimately under the order dated 18/2/95 his ad-hoc promotion was brought to an end from 18/2/95.
8. From the record of the Special Civil Application, I find that it is purely an ad-hoc promotion given to the petitioner on the higher post from time to time. The post of Clerk or Clerk-cum-Typist are to be filled in by the centralized recruitment under the Rules, 1970. The petitioner pending selection through selection procedure as laid down in the Rules, 1970 has been given purely ad-hoc promotion and that too for a fixed term. Such a promotion can be brought to an end at any point of time as the petitioner has not acquired any right to continue on the post. These are the promotions, which are not in accordance with rules and it is a stop gap arrangement it continues so long as it is permitted by the authority but howsoever long the employee may continue he has not acquired any right to hold the post. This matter is squarely covered by the decision of the apex court in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Dr. Prari Mohan Misra reported in 1995(2) SC 54.
9. On the record of this Special Civil Application, I do not find any order of the respondent appointing the petitioner as a Clerk-cum-Typist in a substantive capacity. His appointment was purely on ad-hoc and temporary basis and that too as stated earlier for a fixed term. The reference may have to the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Bhanmati Tapubhai Muliya Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1995 (2) GLH 228.
10. Taking into consideration of the totality of the facts of the case, I do not find any merits in this Special Civil Application and the same deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted by this court stands vacated. In the facts of this case and further that nobody present on behalf of the respondents, no order as to costs.