Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3330/2002 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3330 of 2002
=========================================================
KANTABEN
MAFATLAL SHRIMALI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
RK MISHRA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
Mr J. K Shah Asstt. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 20/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner has prayed to declare that the action on the part of the
respondent authority of not appointing the petitioner on the
permanent post after completion of three years of her services is
illegal and arbitrary.
2. The
petitioner joined services in the office of respondent No. 2 as
peon -Class IV employee and the order of appointment with 5 hours
and 29 days basis was issued by the respondent Commissioner and
accordingly she has served for more than 7 years without break.
3. The
appointment was depreciated by this Court. The petitioner
approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No.
549 of 2000 for redressal of her grievances which came to be disposed
of by this Court with a direction that the respondent No. 2 shall
consider the case of the petitioner for appointment of peon in
consonance with the relevant recruitment rules when the post of peon
is required to be filled in.
4. Thereafter
the petitioner requested the respondent to consider her case but
the respondent refuted her case inspite of the direction given by
this Court in Special Civil Application No. 549 of 2000. Therefore
the present petition.
5. Learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that the the petitioner has
put in more than seven years service and therefore she is entitled
appointment on permanent post. According to learned advocate inspite
of clear direction the respondent has refused the request of the
petitioner.
6. Learned
advocate for the respondent has contended that the petitioner was a
part timer water bearer. She could not be given regular appointment
on a permanent/full time post, as per the prevailing government
orders.
7. Learned
advocate for the respondent has further contended that the said
circular dated 24th March 1976 has been kept in abeyance
by issuance of the Government circular, in Finance Department dated
21st August 1995.
8. From
the papers on record it is borne out that the circular dated 24th
March 1976 has been kept in abeyance by issuance of the Government
circular, of Finance Department dated 21st August 1995. On
this ground the petitioner cannot claim permanency and she cannot
be absorbed as a full timer, especially when the petitioner was only
part-timer. This petition stands dismissed accordingly. Rule is
discharged with no order as to costs.
9. However,
keeping in mind the order passed by this Court in Special Civil
Application No. 549 of 2000 and looking at the long service of the
petitioner if a representation is made by the petitioner the same
shall be considered sympathetically by the respondents.
(K.S.
Jhaveri,J.)
mary//
Top