ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing and setting aside the communications dated 06.10.2023 and 01.11.2023. By the impugned communications, respondent No.2- Registrar, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad had informed the appellant that since he did not clear the Hindi/ Gujarati language examination for higher-grade promotion, which is already granted to him, is required to be withdrawn. The aforesaid communications specifically refer that his appointment order as well as promotion order was having a specific condition of passing the language examination, which he did not do and hence, the said benefits of increment, higher-grade pay-scale and promotion is required to be withdrawn.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Y.N.Ravani appearing for the appellant has submitted that the said action of the respondent No.2 is required to be quashed and set aside since the appellant was not required to clear any Hindi/ Gujarati language examination. He has submitted that in fact, the appellant had filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.9322 of 2003 for claiming higher-grade pay- scale and pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition, he was granted higher-grade pay-scale from 01.03.2001. Learned advocate Mr.Y.N.Ravani has submitted that the appellant was also promoted to the post of Principle Private Secretary (English Stenographer) Class-I and when he was retired, he cannot be asked to clear the Hindi/Gujarati language examination. He has further submitted that he is ready and willing to clear the same as on today. He has submitted that the action of the respondent authority is contrary to the Rules being Gujarat Government Servants (Lower Standard and Higher Standard Gujarati Language Examination) Rules, 1970 (for short “the Rules,1970”). He has submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 4, an employee, who has crossed the age of 50 years is required to be exempted from clearing such examination and now since the appellant has already retired, he cannot be asked to undertake the language examination.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Y.N.Ravani has further reiterated that the appointment of the appellant was made pursuant to an advertisement dated 15.10.1991 and the same also does not prescribe any condition for passing the examination. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the aforesaid Rules and the appellant cannot be asked to clear the Hindi/ Gujarati language examination, as per the Non-Judicial Officers and Staff of the Courts (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017 (for short “the Rules, 2017”). Thus, it is urged that the benefits, which have been granted to the appellant, cannot be ordered to be taken back for failure of passing the language examination. Learned advocate Mr.Y.N.Ravani has further submitted that the appellant is not paid the pensionary benefits also. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the actions initiated by the respondent No.2 may be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Hamesh Naidu appearing for respondent No.2 has urged that the appellant is governed by the conditions envisaged in the appointment order dated 03.03.1992. When the appellant was appointed as a English Stenographer, condition No.5 of the said appointment order specifically provides that he has to pass the requisite examination in Hindi/ Gujarati language as the case may be, within the prescribed time. Thus, it is submitted that the appellant having accepted such condition, he was required to pass the language examination, which he has not done till he retired from the service. Learned advocate Mr.Hamesh Naidu with regard to the order passed by the learned Single Judge directi