Back
2020 Supreme(Guj) 694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
Shitalben Ramsinh Parmar – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and Others – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 21033 of 2016, Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020
Decided On : 03-09-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Amit M. Panchal, Mr. Angesh A. Panchal.
For the Respondents: Ms. Manisha Shah, Mr. Dhawah Jayswal, Mr. Chaitanya S. Joshi.
IMPORTANT POINT
The ad-hoc appointee for the post of Demonstrator has preferred a Special Civil Application, for the payment of the retirement benefits - That some of the ad-hoc appointees were retired or about to retire, and looking to long services the State Government have consulted the GPSC for regularizing the service of Adhoc Demonstrator, but the same was rejected.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Employment and Service matter - Gujarat Public Service Commission- Order of discontinuing the services - Orders of appointment of selected candidate as lecturer after the due selection procedure by the Gujarat Public Service Commission – Adhoc appointment -Seeks Grant benefits of permanency of services – Retirement benefits - All efforts shall be made by the State/GPSC to see that the post of Lecturers/Professors/Assistant Professors/Assistant Lecturers/Teaching Staff in the Polytechnics/Engineering shall be filled in on regular basis, selected by GPSC at the earliest” - It is pertinent to observe that Division Bench in LPA has, in fact, given approval for appointment of teaching staff through selection process by GPSC.
Facts of the Case: Petitioner Prayer to grant benefits of permanency of services, higher pay scale, leave encashment, Contributory Provident Fund, Leave Travel Concession, State Insurance and all such other service benefits which are granted to the employees working in the Government colleges - The petitioner also claimed grant of equal pay with the other employees performing similar work - Therefore, the petition is essentially for regularizing the service of the petitioner as a lecture.
Findings of the court: It would be pertinent to observe that the very judgment was subject matter of challenge by the very petitioner in Letters Patent Appeal where question so far as raised in Special Civil Application was considered in para-7.1 by Letters Patent Appeal Bench which is limited to the extent to consider putting all the ad-hoc lecturers appointed after May 2008 on par with all those adhoc lecturers appointed prior to May-2008 from the date of their initial appointment - Insofar as the observation of creating a scheme, it would be pertinent to reproduce para-9 which ultimately the Letters Patent Appeal Bench had considered in the group of petitions “before parting with the present order, we may observe that State Government is not justified in filling up the post of Professors/Lecturers by ad-hoc Lecturers/Professors for number of years - To continue such post on ad-hoc basis shall not be in large interest of students.
Result: Special Civil and Civil Applications disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, who is appointed as a ad-hoc lecturer, (Sanskrit), Class-II with a prayer to grant benefits of permanency of services, higher pay scale, leave encashment, Contributory Provident Fund, Leave Travel Concession, State Insurance and all such other service benefits which are granted to the employees working in the Government colleges. The petitioner also claimed grant of equal pay with the other employees performing similar work. Therefore, the petition is essentially for regularizing the service of the petitioner as a lecturer, (Sanskrit), Class-II.
2. The petition came to be admitted by an order dated 19.12.2016. Then after, the State Government passed orders dated 12.06.2020 and 13.06.2020 which were the orders of appointment of selected candidate as lecturer after the due selection procedure by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (for short “GPSC”). The order dated 12.06.2020 was passed for discontinuing the services of the petitioner as ad-hoc lecturer in view of the available GPSC selected candidates and therefore, the petitioner filed Civil Application with the main matter praying, inter-alia, for staying the implementation and execution of orders dated 12.06.2020 and 13.06.2020. The application also sought for prayer to restore the services of the petitioner as lecturer, Class-II with the respondent No. 5-college.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Amit Panchal for Mr. Angesh Panchal appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as ad-hoc lecturer, (Senior Scale) by the Department of Health and Family Welfare (Now Ayush) initially for a period of six months in the year 2010 and thereafter, from time to time the services of the petitioner were periodically extended and as of now, the petitioner had completed more than 10 years as ad-hoc lecturer and therefore, is entitled to regularization of her services. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner had completed 10 years of blemish-less service and it was in the larger interest of the students that the petitioner had continued for such a long period to the satisfaction of the employer.
3.1 Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner is now aged 40 years and had surpassed the age limit of securing the Government employment for lecturer. It is submitted that though it is incumbent for the State/GPSC to conduct the examination for selection of lecturer periodically during the entire period of services of the petitioner, only once such examination was held by GPSC and that too after long period of 7 years and 3 months and therefore, the petitioner is deprived of her right to appear more than once in such selection examination and get selected. The examination which was conducted once the petitioner was not successful however, as the respondents have not conducted any other examination prior thereto or thereafter, the petitioner for no fault of her has to lose her chance to appear once again in the selection examination.
3.2 Learned advocate submitted that at present the selection procedure undertaken has selected seven lecturers, out of which five have been posted as only five colleges within the State are functional, whereas two selected candidates have not yet given posting apparently on account of non-availability of functioning colleges. If five are appointed and two are yet to be appointed, then, the petitioner who is well experienced in teaching and is also qualified, is required to be accommodated. Learned advocate submitted that for the purpose of teaching, it is required that a candidate must be well worked and must have proper experience of teaching. By drawing attention to sur-rejoinder, it is submitted that the respondent authorities have posted on deputation to work as lecturers by an order dated 09.01.2020, Medical Officers, who have no teaching experience and they have worked only in Community Health Center/Public Health Center a
