The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct the authorities to consider the regularization of the petitioner's service in light of similar cases and relevant circulars and government resolutions.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. The prayer in this petition is for a direction to regularize the petitioner on the post of Surveyor from the date on which the petitioner has completed five years of service.

3. Shortly stated, the facts are that the petitioner after undergoing a regular process by the respondents no. 2 and 3 was appointed as Surveyor with effect from 01.07.2013. Hence the prayer is to consider his case for regularization in light of he having completed five years of service.

4. Mr. Hemang Parikh, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Apurva Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner would place reliance on a decision of this court dated 21.12.2019 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 9523 of 2009 wherein the case of the petitioners therein was to be regularized. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:

“1. Learned counsel for the respondents having waived service of Rule and having agreed to final disposal of the petitions, they are taken up for final hearing today. The petitioners are Class-III employees of respondents No.2 and 3 and have prayed for direction to regularize their service on the post on which they are working. In view of the conditions of their appointment, the petitioners were required to be regularized after satisfactory completion of initial service of five years. However, respondents No.2 and 3 could not issue necessary orders for the stated reasons that the State Government had not specifically sanctioned such regular appointment. In short, respondents No.2 and 3 have no objection to regularizing the service of the petitioners but they have been awaiting sanction of respondent No.1, whose prior permission was required by virtue of Circular dated 16.02.2006 (at Annexure-C to the petition). Learned A.G.P. submitted, on instruction of Mr.H.R.Prajapati, Section Officer, Urban Development and Urban Housing, who was present in the Court, that the State Government has already granted sanction by letter dated 03.05.2008 (at Annexure-I to the petition); and as far as the petitioners are concerned, respondent No.1, State Government, could not have any objection in view of the fact that all the three petitioners were duly selected and appointed at the relevant time.

2. In view of the above consensus, respondents No.2 and 3 are required to issue appropriate orders in favour of the petitioners. In view of the regularization effected in favour of another similarly situated employee in the same establishment, namely, Prajapati Manoj M., it was agreed that orders in favour of the petitioners shall be issued on the same line and the effect of regularization shall be given from 14.02.2008, as in the case of M.M.Prajapati. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute with the direction that respondents No.2 and 3 shall issue orders regularizing service of the petitioners as aforesaid within a period of one month from today, without awaiting or requiring formal sanction by the State Government. Direct service.”

5. Further, vide decision dated 23.02.2016 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 1481 of 2016, this court directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioners therein for regularization in view of the fact that similarly situated petitioners were regularized.

6. A Division Bench of this court also considered similar issued by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 592 of 2022 and confirmed the order passed by this court in Special Civil Application No. 8601 of 2012. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:

“4. It is the case of the Respondent-Original Petitioner that services of similarly situated employees who were appointed along with the Respondent-Original Petitioner have been regularised. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rapar Area Development Authority in SCA No. 16634 of 2012. The learned Single Judge has observed thus -

"12. Therefore, as discussed hereinabove, the petitioner being found eligible in all respect was ap