IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Constitution of India, specifically Article 14, Article 16, Article 19, and Article 226, in the context of the petitioner's appointment dispute.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has preferred present petition under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India and challenged inaction on the part of the respondents seeking below mentioned relief/s:-

"9.(A) Your Lordship be pleased to Allow this Special Civil Application and further be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper quashing and setting aside the impugned Order/Letter dated 12.02.2007 of the respondent No.1 rejecting the representations of the petitioner (Annexure-J) as well as the Order dated 6.10.2006 (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent No.2, repatriating the petitioner to respondent No.1 by keeping the post of peon on abeyance as both the orders are being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the provisions of law;

(B) Your Lordship be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper declaring that the action of the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and against the principle of natural justice because the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon on daily wage basis since 1999 and for the reasons stated in the memo of petition and in the interest of justice and fairness of things:

(C) Your Lordship be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper directing the respondent No.1 Collector, District Panchmahal, to appoint the petitioner on the post of Peon as other similarly situated persons, who were appointed along with the petitioner, are working in various offices under the Control of respondent No.1 in the pay scale of Rs. 2,550 to 3,200/- for the reasons stated in the memo of petition and in the interest of justice and fairness of things;

(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of present petition, Your Lordship be pleased to:

1. restrain the respondents, their agents, officers and servants from terminating the services of the petitioner and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to allot work to the petitioner as Peon and to pay him the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 2,550 to 3,200/- as other similarly situated persons, who were appointed along with the petitioner. are working in various offices under the Control of respondent No.1 in the pay scale of Rs. 2,550 to 3,200/- and for the reasons stated in the memo of petition and in the interest of principle of natural justice;

2. direct the respondent No.2 to make difference in salary to the petitioner for the period from 1.7.2000 to 30.10.2006 in the time scale of Rs. 2,550 - 3,200/- with 12% interest as the petitioner was paid only the ad hoc payment of Rs. 2,549/- p.m. though other similarly situated persons who were appointed along with the petitioner are being paid in the time scale of Rs. 2,550 - 3,200/- from the date of their appointments and in the interest of justice and fairness of things;

3. Any other reliefs, which is deemed fit and proper by Your Lordships may please be granted in the interest of justice.

4. Ad interim relief/interim relief in terms of Para-8(C)(i) may please be granted in the interest of justice as the petitioner has no other source of income for his livelihood.”

2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that initially the petitioner was appointed by Respondent No. 1 -Collector on 20.8.1999 on the post of Peon. Earlier in place of petitioner, someone else was appointed by the Collector after following the procedures i.e. inviting applications from various intending candidates for the post of Peon. As the candidate selected at Serial. No. 12, did not appear, therefore present petitioner came to be appointed on 20.8.1999.

2.1 Thereafter, the petitioner was continued in the service and again appointment order dated 22.9.1999 came to be issued by the Collector,