SHITALBEN RAMSINH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, who is appointed as a ad-hoc lecturer, (Sanskrit), Class-II with a prayer to grant benefits of permanency of services, higher pay scale, leave encashment, Contributory Provident Fund, Leave Travel Concession, State Insurance and all such other service benefits which are granted to the employees working in the Government colleges. The petitioner also claimed grant of equal pay with the other employees performing similar work. Therefore, the petition is essentially for regularizing the service of the petitioner as a lecturer, (Sanskrit), Class-II.

(2.) The petition came to be admitted by an order dated 19.12.2016. Then after, the State Government passed orders dated 12.06.2020 and 13.06.2020 which were the orders of appointment of selected candidate as lecturer after the due selection procedure by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (for short "GPSC"). The order dated 12.06.2020 was passed for discontinuing the services of the petitioner as ad-hoc lecturer in view of the available GPSC selected candidates and therefore, the petitioner filed Civil Application with the main matter praying, inter alia, for staying the implementation and execution of orders dated 12.06.2020 and 13.06.2020. The application also sought for prayer to restore the services of the petitioner as lecturer, Class-II with the respondent No.5- college.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Amit Panchal for Mr.Angesh Panchal appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as ad-hoc lecturer, (Senior Scale) by the Department of Health and Family Welfare (Now Ayush) initially for a period of six months in the year 2010 and thereafter, from time to time the services of the petitioner were periodically extended and as of now, the petitioner had completed more than 10 years as ad-hoc lecturer and therefore, is entitled to regularization of her services. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner had completed 10 years of blemish-less service and it was in the larger interest of the students that the petitioner had continued for such a long period to the satisfaction of the employer.