STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KAILASHBEN NARANDAS PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are, original respondents have assailed the judgment and order recorded in Special Civil Application No.5343 of 1992 on February 25, 1992, by the learned single Judge, in this Letters Patent Appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, inter alia, contending that the impugned order, whereby, the respondent-original-petitioner came to be reinstated in service with full backwages and all benefits, quashing the order dated 4.9.82, as at Annexure D.

(2.) The original petitioner, was working as Clerk-cum-Typist in the office of the Chief Architect, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. Pursuant to the office order No.320 of 1979 dated 24.12.1979, the petitioner came to be appointed as Junior Clerk-cum-Typist, Class III only for 29 days in the pay scale of Rs.260-400, in Narmada Cell on temporary basis and on leave vacancy of one Smt. D.D.Shah, on the terms and conditions mentioned in the order, which is placed as at Annexure A to the petition. She continued till the impugned order dated 4.9.82 came to be passed. Different orders of appointment are, also, produced on record. As we have seen, the first order was passed on 24.12.1979. Thereafter, second appointment order was passed on 1.12.80, which is produced at Annexure B to the petition, which also, clearly, stipulates that the appointment was temporary and also condition that her services shall stand terminated on 1.12.80, upon regular appointment after select list is prepared by the Collector concerned. One of the orders, clearly, stipulates that her services shall be terminated at any time without any notice. Third order of appointment is produced at Annexure C to the writ petition, whereby, the petitioner came to be appointed on the same post, purely, on temporary basis pursuant to the letter dated 1.12.80 of the Chief Architect. Since the appointment of the petitioner was on a leave vacancy, purely on temporary basis, the impugned order came to be recorded by the office order No.82 of 1982, dated 4.9.82, whereby, her services came to be terminated with immediate effect before office hours on that day. Thereafter, she made representations.

(3.) The petitioner, inter alia, contended that her appointment was made after her name was called from the Employment Exchange and she was working on a temporary substantive post and, therefore, she was entitled to be regularised. She relied on the provisions of rule 33(1)(b) of the Bombay Civil Service Rules (BCSR). It was, therefore, the case of the petitioner that though she was working on temporary basis, in absence of any compliance of the said rule provision, she is entitled to be reinstated with full backwages. The learned single Judge found favour with this plea and directed the appellants, original respondents, to reinstate her in service and to give backwages from the date of termination, like that 4.9.82.