SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. Rule. Ms. Moksha Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule, on behalf of the respondents.

1. This petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash and set aside order dated 16th March, 2006, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.2, Jamnagar, where by the application of the petitioner at Exh. 10, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2004, has been rejected.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy in issue, a brief factual background will be necessary. The petitioner (Original Plaintiff) had been appointed as a Forest Guard, on 4-11-1999. On an apprehension that his services are likely to be terminated, the petitioner instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 661 of 2000, on 23-7-2000, inter alia praying for a declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent No. I-State of Gujarat (Original Defendant No.1), and respondent No.2-Deputy Conservator of Forests, Forest Range, Jamnagar (Original Defendant No.2), against the apprehended termination of his services. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application at Exh. 5, with a prayer to restrain the respondents from obstructing him from discharging his duties. The trial Court injuncted the respondents from doing so, but, at the same time, liberty was reserved to the respondents, to hold an inquiry against the petitioner.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that on 19-4-200 I, a show-cause notice was issued by respondent No. I, seeking an explanation as to why he has produced a false certificate of having failed in the 10th Standard. Another notice followed, dated 1-5-2001. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 9-5-2001 to the said Notices, seeking an opportunity of being heard. Thereafter, on 21-5-2001, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the respondents, by holding that his appointment was against the recruitment rules. An order proposing to terminate the services of the petitioner came to be passed in the interregnum. On 23-5-2001, the petitioner preferred an application at Exh. 17, in the said suit, seeking a direction that the order of proposed termination of his services should not be implemented, and the petitioner should not be prevented from discharging his duties. The prayers made in the said application were granted on 2-6-2001, and the order of termination was stayed, by the Court. Despite the above-mentioned order having been passed, the respondents passed order dated 27-1-2003, during the pendency of the suit, terminating the services of the petitioner. Issues were framed in the suit, below Exh. 38, and issues Nos. 4 and 5 are as under :

4. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit?

5. Whether the alleged order passed by the defendant on dated 17-72000, 21-5-2002 and 27-1-2003 as sustainable at law?

2.2. The trial Court, after hearing the parties at length and appreciating the evidence on record, returned detailed findings on all the issues including the issues reproduced above. Issues Nos. 4 and 5 were dealt with together. On issue No.5, the Court recorded a finding on merits that the termination of the petitioner was bad in law, for the reasons recorded in the judgment and order of the trial Court, which are not necessary to be gone into at this stage.

However, on issue No.4, the trial Court, found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the petitioner should have approached the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal. The suit of the petitioner, was therefore, dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction, by judgment and decree dated 29-4-2003, passed by the trial Court.

2.3. The petitioner approached the High Court against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, by filing Special Civil Application No. 6590 of 2003. The High Court, by order dated 10-12-2003, observed that, as the petitioner had availed of the remedy before the Civil Court, he should pur