2023 Supreme(Guj) 253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SONIA GOKANI, HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, JJ.
Hardik Bharatbhai Trivedi & Others – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Gujarat Through The Secretary & Anr. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 13218 of 2018 With R/Special Civil Application No. 5750 of 2018
Decided On : 24-02-2023

Headnote:

CIVIL JUDGES - APPOINTMENT - REGULAR - AD-HOC - SENIORITY - INTER-SE SENIORITY - REGULAR VACANCIES - SANCTIONED POSTS - CONVERSION OF AD-HOC POSTS INTO REGULAR POSTS - SUITABILITY AND SATISFACTORY SERVICE RECORD - CONSIDERATION FOR APPOINTMENT ON REGULAR POSTS - PRINCIPLE OF INITIAL DATE OF APPOINTMENT/CONTINUOUS OFFICIATION - DETERMINATION OF SENIORITY - INTERPRETATION OF RULES AND GUIDELINES - ADJUDICATION OF SENIORITY - APPOINTMENT ORDERS - CONDITIONS AND CLAUSES - LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION - OBLIGATION OF THE RESPONDENT - CONSIDERATION OF CASE FOR REGULAR APPOINTMENT - CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS - PROMOTION - REGULAR PAY SCALE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who were appointed as Civil Judges on an ad-hoc basis pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent High Court, challenged the non-consideration of their case for regular appointment and the continuation of their services on an ad-hoc basis despite the availability of regular posts. The petitioners contended that the inaction on the part of the respondents in not converting their services into regular appointments amounted to discrimination. They also argued that the subsequent appointment of new candidates on regular posts, based on regular posts sanctioned after their appointment, would result in less meritorious candidates being appointed on a regular basis as compared to the petitioners and others who were already in service.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to be considered for regular appointment against the regular posts sanctioned by the State Government from the date of their initial appointment, with all consequential benefits including promotion and regular pay scale from the date on which they were entitled. The Court directed the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to be considered for regular appointment against the regular posts sanctioned by the State Government? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to consequential benefits including promotion and regular pay scale from the date on which they were entitled?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to be considered for regular appointment against the regular posts sanctioned by the State Government from the date of their initial appointment. The Court relied on the following principles: (a) The principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation is a valid principle to be considered for adjudging the inter-se seniority of officers in the absence of any rule or guidelines in determining seniority to the contrary. (b) Where selections are held separately by different recruiting authorities, the principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation may be the valid principle to be considered for adjudging the inter-se seniority of the officers. (c) The interpretation of rules and guidelines, including the advertisement issued by the respondent High Court, should be done in a manner that gives effect to the legitimate expectation and obligation created by the respondent. 2. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to consequential benefits including promotion and regular pay scale from the date on which they were entitled. The Court relied on the following principles: (a) Regularization on regular sanctioned posts necessarily shall need to be subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria by officers. (b) The petitioners were entitled to the benefits of regularization from the date on which they were entitled, subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria.

Final Decision: The Court directed the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order against the regular posts created by the State from the date of their initial appointment and give all the consequential benefits including the promotion and the regular pay scale from the date on which they are entitled.