Point of Law: Employment and Service matter - Regularization of service - Absence of any strong justification assigned by respondents, for not regularizing service of petitioner, case of petitioner also needs consideration in line with directions contained in the judgments passed by this Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner on the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) Class-III from the date on which, the petitioner has completed 5 years of service, that is, 1.6.2006.

2. Briefly stated are the facts:

2.1. On 3.3.2001, respondent no.1-Roads & Buildings Department (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent no.1”) of the State Government had given an advertisement in the local daily newspaper, namely, Gujarat Samachar inviting applications for the post of Assistant Engineer. Pursuant to which, the petitioner had applied on 30.5.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner was called for interview on 11.03.2001 by the respondent department and after conducting the selection procedure, came to be appointed on 1.6.2001 by the respondent no.1. The said appointment was initially for a period of 9 months on a fixed pay of Rs.5000/- per month. It is the case of the petitioner that along with the petitioner, several other persons were also appointed in various Talukas in the District Kutch.

2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1, vide letter dated 12.4.2006, was pleased to transfer all the employees, who have been appointed on the post of Consultant to the offices of the District Collectors, who in turn, had passed further orders. The petitioner was transferred to the office of Mamlatdar and since then, the petitioner has been working with the respondents without any break.

2.3. The petitioner after having put in several years of service, made representations to the concerned respondent, inter alia, requesting it to regularize the service of the petitioner; however, the request of the petitioner did not yield any result. The office of the Mamlatdar so also, the office of the District Collector had recommended to the concerned authorities to regularize the service of the petitioner but the respondent no.2, vide letters dated 23.3.2012 and 17.5.2012, did not accede to the request on the ground that the appointment was not made by the concerned respondent and it is impermissible for it to regularize the service of the petitioner.

2.4. It is stated that the service of the similarly situated employees, who were appointed along with the petitioner, have been regularized. One such order is dated 14.2.2008 regularizing the service of six employees of different areas development authorities, namely, Bhachau, Bhuj, Anjar and Rapar, in tune with the Government Resolution dated 16.2.2006. Further, the Section Officer of the Urban Development & Urban Housing Department had also issued a letter dated 3.5.2008 to the various development authorities, directing them to regularize the service of the concerned employees, who have been appointed after following due procedure of selection. Apropos which, service of the concerned employees was regularized on the sanctioned post. Moreover, the Principal Secretary had also issued a letter dated 22/27.5.2008 to the various development authorities to act in conformity with the directions contained in the letter dated 3.5.2008 of the concerned department. Despite such instructions issued by the concerned department, the service of the petitioner has not been regularized. Further, to the shock of the petitioner, the respondent no.1 vide letter dated 27.06.2011 addressed to the office of the Mamlatdar, informed that considering the nature of the initial appointment of the petitioner, his service cannot be regularized by respondent no.1.

2.5. In support of such grievance, reliance is placed on various orders passed by this Court to contend that though the petitioner is similarly situated, the respondents have not bothered to regularize the service of the petitioner despite the fact that the petitioner has been appointed after following due procedure. It is therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be accepted and necessary di