IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5395 of 1984
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
————————————————————–
AB TALAVIA & ORS.
Versus
DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL DEFENCE DEPARTMENT
————————————————————–
Appearance:
MR DM THAKKAR for Petitioners
MR MUKESH PATEL for Respondents
————————————————————–
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
Date of decision: 05/05/97
C.A.V. JUDGEMENT
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. The
counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
No.1 has already left the Government service, and as
such, his name should be deleted, to which the counsel
for the respondents has no objection. Order accordingly.
The name of petitioner No.1 is deleted from this Special
Civil Application. The Special Civil Application is
dismissed so far it relates to the petitioner No.1.
2.The petitioners, Probation Officers in the office
of the Director of Social Defence Department, Gujarat
State, Ahmedabad, filed this Special Civil Application
before this Court and challenge has been made to the
order of the respondent No.1 to terminate their services.
The petitioners have challenged the order of the
termination of their services on the ground that it is
illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and
contrary to the administrative policy laid down by the
Government from time to time. Both the petitioners were
appointed as Probation Officer in the pay-scale of
425-700 under the order dated 12th May, 1977, and they
have been appointed after selection and have been placed
on probation. As per the recruitment rules, the
petitioners were required to pass the departmental
examination and examination in Hindi and Gujarati. The
other conditions have been fulfilled by the petitioners,
but the condition of the passing of the departmental
examination as required under the aforesaid rules was not
fulfilled.
3.Now it is not necessary to give out all the
detailed facts of the case as it is not in dispute that
the petitioner No.3 has passed the departmental
examination later on and his services were regularised.
So far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, he has been
given one more chance for passing of the departmental
examination by the department, subject to the approval of
the State Government. It is not in dispute between the
parties that the petitioner No.2 has passed the
examination, but his result was not declared as it was
subject to the approval of the State Government, and the
latter declined to approve the same. However, the record
of the examination of the petitioner No.2 has been called
and he passed the examination.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents contended
that the chance has been given by the department subject
to the approval of the Government, and as such, when the
approval was not granted, the passing of the examination
by the petitioner No.2 is of no consequence and his
termination order does not call for interference.
5.I do not find any justification in this
contention of the counsel for the respondents. The
petitioner No.2 was appointed, as stated earlier, after
selection and it was a regular appointment. It is not
the case of temporary appointment or adhoc appointment or
a back-door entry. It is true that the appointment of
the petitioner was subject to the passing of the
departmental examination, but when the petitioner No.2
has already passed the examination, I fail to see any
justification in the action of the respondent-State not
to accord the sanction to the result of the examination.
Moreover, the services of the petitioners were terminated
under the order dated 17th October, 1984 only on the
ground of non-passing of the departmental examination,
that is after seven years, their services were
terminated. The order of termination has been stayed by
this Court as it transpires from the order of this Court
dated 23rd October, 1984. So the petitioners are working
in the department since 1977 and more than 19 years have
already passed. In view of this fact, now it will not be
in the interest of justice to ask the petitioner to go to
home. The departmental examination has to be passed and
that examination has been passed, may be on a grace
chance given to the petitioner No.2.
6.Taking into consideration the totality of the
facts of this case, this writ petition deserves to be
accepted and the same succeeds. The orders annexure `G’
dated 17th October, 1984 at page Nos.31 and 33 relating
to the termination of the services of the petitioners
No.2 and 3 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute with no order as to costs.
***********
zgs/-