Gujarat High Court
Judgename :V.H.BHAIRAVIA
P.R.Prajapati - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A.3640 of 1980
Decided On : 09/14/1993
GUJARAT PANCHAYAT ACT, 1961 - SECTION 203 - APPOINTMENT OF TRACERS - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - Petitioners appointed as Tracers by Panchayat Selection Committee - Petitioners appeared in subsequent examination conducted by Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Committee and were selected - Petitioners placed below Serial Nos. 1 to 15 in Select List - Services of petitioners sought to be terminated and selected candidates from Serial Nos. 1 to 15 ordered to be appointed in their place - Petitioners challenged termination of their services - Court held that petitioners' services could not be terminated merely because they were placed below in merit list - Petitioners had rendered long service and complied with all service conditions - Termination of petitioners' services on flimsy ground that they were not below in merit list was held to be absurd - Court directed petitioners to be treated as regularly appointed with all benefits of past service.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were appointed as Tracers by Panchayat Selection Committee after appearing in an interview and written test. Subsequently, Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Committee conducted an examination for the post of Tracer and petitioners appeared and were selected. However, petitioners were placed below Serial Nos. 1 to 15 in the Select List. Services of petitioners were sought to be terminated and selected candidates from Serial Nos. 1 to 15 were ordered to be appointed in their place.
Finding of the Court:
Court held that petitioners' services could not be terminated merely because they were placed below in merit list. Petitioners had rendered long service and complied with all service conditions. Termination of petitioners' services on flimsy ground that they were not below in merit list was held to be absurd. Court directed petitioners to be treated as regularly appointed with all benefits of past service.
Issues: Whether petitioners' services could be terminated merely because they were placed below in merit list in subsequent examination conducted by Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in H. C. Puttaswamy and others vs. The honble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and others, and Ashok Kumar sharma and another Versus Chander Shekher And Another with case of State of Jammu and Kashmir Versus Chander Shekjer and anothers. Court held that petitioners had rendered long service and complied with all service conditions. Termination of petitioners' services on flimsy ground that they were not below in merit list was held to be absurd. Court directed petitioners to be treated as regularly appointed with all benefits of past service.
Final Decision: Petition partly allowed. Rule made absolute so far as petitioners nos. 1 to 5 are concerned. Rule discharged so far as petitioner no. 6 is concerned. No order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioners, in this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for a writ of madamus directing respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in the cadre of Tracers, since they have been selected by the panchayat Selection committee and got appointed.
( 2 ) THE short facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioners are qualified candidates for the post of Tracer and therefore therie names were sent by the Employment exchange to the District Development Officer, Sabarkantha District Panchayat and in response thereto, the petitioners were called for interview by the respondent no. 3. Thereafter written test was also conducted by the respondent no. 3. The petitioners appeared in the said interview and test and after successfully getting through the said examination, the petitioners were further called for oral interview. In oral interview also, the petitoners on getting success, were selected for the post of Tracer by the Panchayat selection committee, consisting of District Development Officer and other officers. Thereafter, selected candidates were appointed as Tracers by the order of the responent no. 3 in pursuance of their selection made by the office of the District Development officer, sabarkantha as per Annexure A. said appointment was in accordance with sec. 203 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961. Further, the condition enumerated in appointment order is that the appiontment being temporary in nature and therefore, the selected candidates have to appear before the Gujarat Panchayat Servics Selection committee and to get themselves selected, and if they failed to do so, their services are liable to be terminated. Accordingly, the petitioners were appointed in the year 1978-79. It is stated that the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Committee invited applications fro the post of Tracer by public advertisement in the year 1980 and in pusuace thereto, the petitioners have also applied for the said post. Petitioners appeared before the Selection committee and have been declared passed and selected fro the post of Tracer has afvertised. It is also stated that in the Select List, the petitioner have been put below from serial Nos. 1 to 15. It has been stated that the petitioner no. 6-Shri R. B. Stwara could not pass in the examination, therefore, his name is not appeared in the Select List. The posts required to be filled in are only 15 in numbers and that too from the Select List and as the petitioners were put below from Serial Nos. l to 15, the services of the petitioners were sought to be terminated and selected candidates as per Select List from Serial Nos. 1 to 15 were ordererd to be appointed and posted in place of the present petitioners who were holding the said post since 1978-79. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court invoking extra-oridinaray jurisdiction under An. 226 of the Constition and sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner. It is stated that on account of interim order against their termination issued by this court, the petitioners are in service. It has been pointed outly Mrs. Mehta that while containing the ad-interim injunction, the interim relief in favour of petitioner no. 6. was vacated as the petitioner no. 6 could not pass the examination as aforesaid.
( 3 ) MRS. Mehta, learned counsel apparing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that since the appointment of the petitioners is made by Selection Committee legally and validly constituted under Rules 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service selection Boad functions Rules 1964, and that the petitioners have complied with the conditions to appear before the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Committee and thereafter got themselves selected, their services could not be termiated and selected, candidates at Serial Nos. 1 to 1. 5 could not be appoin
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.