KANTILAL MOHANLAL KANADLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the termination of his services from the Clerical cadre in the establishment of the Amreli District Panchayat.

(2.) The facts of the case which lead to filing of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Instructor on being selected by the Gujarat Panchayat Services Selection Board on 25.2.1971 in the Industrial Training Institute run by District Panchayat. On the closure of the Industrial Training Institute the petitioner was rendered surplus and he was ordered to be absorbed as clerk by the District Panchayat, Surat on 28.2.1976. The order of the absorption of the petitioner on the post of Clerk is there on the record of the Special Civil Application. This absorption was subject to certain conditions and one of the conditions was that he has to face selection for this post before the Gujarat Panchayat Services Selection Board. Later on this condition was modified and he was only required to face the interview. There is no dispute that as per the service rules and service conditions of the post of the cadre, the petitioner has to pass pre-service training examination in the specified chances. In this case, the petitioner was once appeared in the examination for pre-service training examination but he failed. This happened in the year 1982. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not informed about the second opportunity whom he could have appeared. The petitioner states that he availed of the opportunity next following which was treated by the Panchayat as Third opportunity. The petitioner as per his case was informed of this opportunity vide order dated 4.4.1990 issued by the Dy. D.D.O. (Establishment), Amreli. It is to be stated here that after his absorption as clerk the petitioner has been transferred from District Panchayat, Amreli on his own request. The petitioner stated that in response to the aforesaid letter of the Dy.D.D.O. (Establishment), Amreli he reported for examination at the examination centre, Bhavnagar. He was not given the roll number and he was not allowed to appear in the examination. Reference in this respect may have to the letter dated 16.2.1991 of the Deputy Collector, Pre-service Training Centre, Bhavnagar. As the petitioner has availed of three chances of the examination the services of the petitioner were terminated under order dated 11.12.1990 of the Dy. D.D.O. (Establishment), Amreli. He was relieved from services on 12.12.1990. Against this order the petitioner filed appeal to the District Development Officer, Amreli. The appeal was admitted by the District Development Officer on 13.12.90 and the interim relief has also been granted in favour of the petitioner directing the district Panchayat to reinstate the petitioner in service until further orders. Accordingly, the petitioner was taken back on duty on 13.12.1990. I find contradictory pleadings in para 5 of the Special Civil Application. In para 4 of the Special Civil Application the petitioner stated as a fact that his services have been brought to an end by order of Dy. D.D.O. (Establishment), Amreli on 11.10.1990 contrary to which in para 5 the petitioner has stated that he has since learnt that P.H.C., Damnagar has received a copy of the order purporting to terminate the petitioner's services. It is further stated that the same has not been served upon the petitioner as he was on C.L. since 10.7.1991.

(3.) The reply to the Special Civil Application has been filed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to which the petitioner has filed rejoinder. In the reply to the Special Civil Application preliminary objection was raised re. maintainability of the Special Civil Application on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The petitioner filed rejoinder as said earlier in which he stated that the appeal which is filed before District Development Officer is pending. He further admitted that he made a representation in this matter on 9.10.1986 to the Development Commissioner, Gandhinagar and that is also pending.