IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the advertisement for appointment of Multipurpose Health Workers and the recruitment rules framed under Section 203 read with Section 323 of the Panchayat Act clearly indicated that the appointments were to be made after training, and the court's interpretation of the advertisement and recruitment rules influenced its decision.

JUDGMENT :

(Biren Vaishnav, J.)

1. Letters Patent Appeal No.979 of 2017 has been filed by the Kutch District Panchayat and the Chief District Health Officer challenging the oral judgement dated 06.10.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.8245 of 2008 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the petition holding that the petitioners therein were entitled to permanent appointment as Multipurpose Health Workers (male) in the regular pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-.

2. Letters Patent Appeal No.526 of 2022 is filed by the original petitioner challenging the judgement of even date i.e. 06.10.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.3660 of 2010 by the same learned Single Judge dismissing the original petitioner’s petition which, according to the appellant-original petitioner was on same facts on which the petition of the appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No.979 of 2017 was allowed.

3. Therefore, we have heard Letters Patent Appeal No.979 of 2017 filed by the Kutch District Panchayat as the lead matter. The appellants shall be referred to as ‘original respondents’ and the respondent in the appeal as ‘original petitioners’.

4. Facts in brief are that the original petitioners pursuant to a public advertisement dated 05.07.2001 issued by the Kutch District Panchayat inviting applications for 1 year training for the purpose of appointment as Multipurpose Health-workers (male) applied for the same. On 06.08.2002, they completed their training and on 29.01.2004 the original petitioners were given appointments on fixed pay providing for a break after 11 months. Having found that their colleagues had succeeded in Special Civil Application No.21508 of 2007, they preferred a petition which was disposed on the ground of preferring representations. By a communication dated 05.01.2008, the Kutch District Panchayat rejected their representations for regularization on the ground that their appointments were on fixed pay basis and their appointments were not in accordance with the recruitment rules.

5. The learned Single Judge by the order under challenge allowed the petitions. Hence, the appeal.

6. Mr.H.S.Munshaw learned counsel for the appellant-Panchayat would submit that the post of Multipurpose Health Workers is a district cadre post. He would submit that the District Panchayat sought permission to fill 31 posts in accordance with the recruitment rules notified by a notification dated 03.10.2006. He would read the advertisement dated 05.07.2001 and submit that the advertisement in fact was not for appointment but for selection as trainees for a period of one year to be sent for training for multipurpose training course. The advertisement categorically mentioned that candidates who were successfully completing their training will subsequently have to undergo the recruitment procedure to be held by the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee and only on successful completion of training they would be eligible for appointment.

6.1 He would submit that the original respondents who were the petitioners were appointed as multipurpose health-workers on contractual basis for a period of 11 months on a fixed remuneration. Their appointment was contractual and purely ad-hoc and therefore it cannot be said that the appointments were in accordance with law. That they had not undergone regular selection procedure and the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge directing the Panchayat to extend the benefits of permanency in the pay scale is contrary to law.

7. Mr.Gautam Joshi learned Senior Advocate appearing with learned advocate Mr.Shivang Shah for the original petitioners would support the order of the learned Single Judge. He would take us through the advertisement and submit that reading of the advertisement would indicate that it was not for the purpose of training, in effect if such an advertisement had to be interpreted for the purpose of training only, there will be no place of mentioning reservation. Similar advertisements were issu