Jadav Jitendrasinh Karansinh vs State of Gujarat, Through Secretary

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Guj) 1449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
Jadav Jitendrasinh Karansinh & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Gujarat, Through Secretary & Others - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 7620 of 2011 With Misc. Civil Application (For Direction) No. 1 of 2012
Decided On : 06-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. T.R. Mishra.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kurven Desai, AGP, Mr. U.M. Shastri.

Headnote:
Select on basis of merit list - Orders of appointment - Direct respondents to issue immediately appointment/extension orders to petitioners as petitioners have been selected and on basis of merit list, orders of appointment were issued – Held, Petition have prayed for directing respondent to issue immediately appointment / extension orders to petitioners and have not prayed for any order of regularization, respondents are directed to consider case of petitioners by keeping in mind observations made by this Court vide oral judgment in Special Civil Application and allied matters, more particularly, by bearing in mind that neither learned AGP nor learned advocate appearing for State and District respectively could point out any material which may show any difference between present set of petitioners and petitioners of those petitions - State Government is directed to complete exercise and to take a decision in respect of conferring benefits upon petitioners including benefits of reinstatement - As far as back wages is concerned, it is an admitted position that petitioners have not worked and therefore, petitioners shall not be entitled to any back wages, however, case of petitioners for continuity of service is directed to be considered notionally while considering case of petitioners - Petition partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to immediately consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the submissions made in this petition and be further pleased to direct the respondents to issue immediately appointment/extension orders to the petitioners as the petitioners have been selected and on the basis of merit list, orders of appointment were issued.

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondents from filling up the posts pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2011.

(C)Your Lordships may further be pleased to direct the respondents to release the arrears of incentive amount at the rate of Rs.3,750/ per month for last four months, forthwith.

(D) Any other and further reliefs as this Hon’‘ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra appearing for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. U.M. Shastri appearing for the respondent no. 2 – Panchmahal District Panchayat and learned AGP Mr. Kurven Desai appearing for the respondent no. 1 – State.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under:-

It is the case of the petitioners who are 24 in number that the petitioners are fulfilling the requisite qualification for being appointed as Multipurpose Health Worker and accordingly, pursuant to an advertisement, the petitioners were appointed as Multi Purpose Health Worker in the Godhra District Panchayat. All the petitioners were appointed in the month of December, 2009 and more particularly, on 04.12.2009 for the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) on a fixed salary of Rs. 2500/- per month and as per the appointment order, the petitioners’ appointment was valid till 31.03.2010 or till the regularly selected candidates selected by the District Panchayat are available, whichever is earlier, which would indicate that the appointment of the petitioners was of ad-hoc/contractual nature. The petitioners appointment was subsequently extended and it is the case of the petitioners that their services were orally terminated after 28.02.2011. After terminating the petitioners’ services, the respondents issued a fresh advertisement for the purpose of appointment of Multipurpose Health Worker on the same terms and conditions which would indicate that even by way of a fresh advertisement of 2011 also the District Panchayat opted for ad-hoc employees who would work on contractual basis on the post of Multipurpose Health Worker. Meaning thereby, the District Panchayat wanted to replace the ad-hoc employees who were on contractual employment by way of another set of ad-hoc employees by fresh contractual appointment. Therefore, the aforesaid action of the respondent – Panchayat is challenged by way of this petition.

4. Learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra appearing for the petitioners submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in case of Gujarat State Karmachari Sankalan Samiti V/s. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011 which was decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram:-Honourable Mr. Justice Mohinder Pal) vide judgment dated 25.07.2018. He further submitted that the aforesaid decision was carried in appeal by the State of Gujarat by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1327 of 2019 and even the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.10.2019 dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondent – State against which the State preferred the Special Leave Petition being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 5663 of 2020 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.10.2020 though condoned the delay in preferring the Special Leave Petition, Special Leave Petition was di