IMPORTANT POINT
The appointment of an employee cannot be revoked without a hearing, as this violates principles of natural justice and civil rights.

JUDGMENT :

Nirzar S. Desai, J.

1. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondents.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 8.11.2023 passed by the Director General, Civil Defence and Commandant General, Home Guards, Ahmedabad - respondent No.2 herein by which the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for reinstatement in service with continuity and all other consequential monetary and other benefits.

3. The brief facts as submitted by learned advocate Mr. K. B. Pujara can be summarized as under :-

3.1 Pursuant to an advertisement dated 20.1.2021 by the Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board for 25 posts of Hawaldar Instructor, Class 3 in Home Guards organization under Home Department of Government of Gujarat, the petitioner applied for ultimately found his place in the merit-list at Serial No.1. However, the petitioner was not possessing a driving license meant for light motor vehicle since last two years and, therefore, he was lacking in respect of this experience. Therefore, according to the Rules, he could not have been appointed. However, according to learned advocate Mr. Pujara, the Rules provide for relaxation not by the Appointing Authority but by the State Government i.e. Home Department. However, in the instant case, for some reason, the aforesaid condition was relaxed by the Appointing Authority i.e. Director General, Civil Defence and Commandant General, Home Guards, Ahmedabad and the petitioner was appointed on the post in question vide appointment order dated 5.11.2023. The said office order contains conditions of appointment as well whereby it was categorically stated that the petitioner who was at Serial No.1 who does not possess the experience of driving light motor vehicle for the last two years, he shall not be permitted to drive the Government vehicle and the said appointment was for fixed tenure of five years.

3.2 Pursuant to the said appointment order, the petitioner joined the services under the respondent No.2 and immediately upon joining, within a period of three days from the date of his appointment, vide office order dated 8.11.2024, by taking a completely contrary stand, the same Appointing Authority i.e. Director General, Civil Defence and Commandant General, Home Guards, Ahmedabad cancelled the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he does not possess the experience in respect of light motor vehicle license.

3.3 The same was done without putting the petitioner into notice, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and without following any procedure. Therefore, according to learned advocate Mr. Pujara, once a right is created in favour of the petitioner by relaxing certain conditions like experience of LMV License, the appointment of the petitioner could not have been terminated by taking a totally contrary stand on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite experience required for the post in question. Mr. Pujara, therefore, submitted that when some right is created in favour of the petitioner and appointment is granted to the petitioner, such appointment cannot be cancelled on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the required qualification and, therefore, such termination, even if the petitioner is a probationer, is illegal as in such eventuality, the respondents have unilaterally taken a decision without hearing the petitioner and, therefore, such termination is required to be quashed and set aside.

4. Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents from the record pointed out that the petitioner's appointment was for a fixed term of five years with a fixed salary. The petitioner was a probationer and, therefore, the State w