MANHARLAL HIRALAL PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The recruitment was to be held against six posts of Computers in the Directorate of Health, Medical Services and Medical Education (Health Section). For this purpose, names were requisitioned only from the Employment Exchange and no other notice inviting application was issued in any form. The first list of the candidates was sent to the Department on 20th Jan.1983. On 23rd June 1983, the Department asked the Employment Exchange for sending the names of more candidates, but on 18th July 1983, the Employment Exchange informed the Department that no further list can be sent. In the meanwhile, a second list was received by the Department on 7th July 1983. In this second list dated 7th July 1983, the appellant's name was also there. On that basis, the appellant was called for interview on 3rd August 1983 and he was selected and his name was included in the select list and accordingly, the appellant was given appointment on 12th Aug.1983 in pursuance of which he joined on 24th Aug.1983. This select list had also been sent to the Employment Exchange on 10th Oct.1983. While the appellant was so continuing in service on the basis of the appointment order dated 12th Aug.1983 as Computer, on 1.8.1984, a letter was sent by the Employment Exchange to the department stating therein that no second list as was received by the department on 7.7.83 had been sent by the Employment Exchange to the Department. On 1.1.1985, the Special Civil Application was filed by the appellant apprehending that his services were likely to be terminated. It appears that ad-interim relief was granted against the termination on 1st Jan.1985 itself while issuing notice. Rule was thereafter issued on 10.1.1986 and the interim relief was ordered to continue. Subsequently, the termination order dated 31st Dec.1984 was produced along with the affidavit-in-reply dated 27th April 1993 filed on behalf of the respondents and it appears from the reading of this order dated 31st Dec.1984 at page 13/L that it was an order of termination simpliciter. However, the respondents have stated in the reply that on 30th Dec.1982, certain vacancies in the cadre of Computer had been notified and the Regional Employment Exchange office was requested to send the names of eligible persons. The Regional Employment Exchange office under letter dated 20th Jan.1983 sent a list of 75 candidates and in addition to this list of 75 candidates, the Department also received a further list of 10 candidates under letter dated 7th July 1983 purporting to have been sent by the Regional Employment Exchange office. In this second list the appellant's name figures at No.9. All these persons i.e. 75 of first list and 10 of second list were called for interview and six candidates including the present appellant were selected. The list of these six selected candidates was sent to the Employment Exchange office under letter dated 10th Oct.1983. That amongst the said six persons, the first five persons were sponsored through the first list dated 20th Jan.1983 while the present appellant was from the second list dated 7th July 1983. The Employment Exchange office having received the said letter dated 10th Oct.1983 informed the Department that after due investigation, under its letter dated 1.8.1984, it was found that the Employment Exchange had sent only one list of 75 candidates on 20th Jan.1983 and no further list was sent by the said office; that the letter dated 7th July 1983 with the list was forged and whereas the name of the appellant had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange office, his entry in the service was bad and the respondents found that the appellant could not be continued in service. The correspondence in this regard has been enclosed with the reply. The categorical stand of the respondents in para 5 of the reply is as under:

(2.) The aforesaid Special Civil Application which was pending since 1985 came to be decided by the learned Single Judge on 30th June 2000 whereby the Special Civil Application was rejected and the interim relief granted on 1.1.85 and continued thereafter which remained operative through out was vacated. But, the fact remains that right from the date of his joining in pursuance of the appointment order dated 12th Aug.1983, i.e. 24th Aug.1983, the appellant was continued in service throughout for the period of nearly 16 years by the time the petition was decided. Against this judgment and order dated 30th June 2000, the present Letters Patent Appeal was preferred on 2nd Aug.2000, but in the meanwhile, the appellant was relieved from service on 27th July 2000. This Letters Patent Appeal was admitted on 4th Oct.2000 after notice to the respondents.

(3.) The learned Single Judge has taken the view that it is a fact that no such second list had been sent by the Employment Exchange to the Department and who had sent this forged list is not material, once it was found that the appellant's name had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The appointment given to him on the basis of that list was not correct and as he was appointed as Probationer and was discharged from service, it was a case of termination simpliciter of a probationer or a temporary employment for which no enquiry or notice was required to be given; whereas the order had not been passed by way of penalty and the probationer has no right to continue on the post and his services were liable to be terminated and the order also does not cast any stigma on the appellant. The learned Single Judge has also not agreed to the contention raised before him that whereas the appellant had continued in service for all these years since 1983 to 2000 and from 1.1.85 onwards on the basis of the interim relief granted by this Court, he deserves to be protected at this stage when he had become overage..