The court reaffirmed that amendments to employment regulations should apply prospectively, preventing unjust termination based on retrospective rule applications, especially under pandemic circumstances.

ORDER :

Nikhil S. Kariel, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Niyati Chauhan on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Pathak on behalf of respondent- State.

2. By way of the present petition the petitioner has prayed for the following prayers:

A. That the Hon'ble may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the orders dated 16.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 and order dated 19.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 whereby, the petitioner was terminated from his services and count the services of the petitioner continuous in nature;

C. Pending admission hearing and final disposal of captioned matter the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the implementation and execution of the orders dated 16.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 and order dated 19.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 whereby, the petitioner was terminated from his services and count the services of the petitioner continuous in nature;

D. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to extend and/or give relaxation to the petitioner herein for six months or till the University conducts the "CCC Government Exam for Employee" for passing the said Examination;

E. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 18.10.2022 made by the petitioner at the earliest;

F. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain the seniority of the petitioner in the gradation list and keep one post vacant during the promotion process:

G. YOUR Lordships may grant such other and further relief as deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had joined the services of the respondent – Forest Department as a Beatguard on 02.09.2013 on contractual / fixed pay basis for five years. It would appear that after completion of five years of service satisfactorily, services of the petitioner were confirmed/ regularized on 02.09.2018. It would appear that during the interregnum, the State Government had passed Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 inter alia requiring employees to clear the CCC examination within a period of two years for regularization of services. It would appear that the petitioner had applied to the SPIPA for appearing in the examination and whereas it would appear that the case of the petitioner had been recommended by his superior officer i.e Range Forest Officer who had written to the SPIPA to give priority to the petitioner since he had to pass the examination within a stipulated time period. It would appear that while the examinations could not be conduced at the relevant point of time, the petitioner, had appeared in an examination conducted in the month of July 2020 and had not cleared the theory exam. It would appear that the petitioner had again applied for appearing in the examination and vide result declared on 05.09.2020, the petitioner had cleared the theory exam also. It would appear that in the interregnum, on account of the petitioner not passing the CCC examination within the stipulated time period, services of the petitioner were terminated vide an order dated 16.09.2020 passed by Deputy Conservator of Forest, Forest Range, Surat based upon which order dated 19.09.2020 had been passed by the Range Forest Officer, Mandvi relieving the petitioner from service. It would appear that later on, upon the petitioner passing the CCC examination on 31.12.2020, the petitioner had been reinstated in service, and whereas, the grievance being raised is that though the petitioner had been reinstated in service vide an order 04.01.2021 and whereas, the grievance being raised