KUMARI RESHMABEN PRAVINBHAI DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJRAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr R K Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr N J Shah, learned AGP for the respondents. This intra court Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 8.3.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No.2524 of 2006.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the appellant was appointed as Medical Officer on 6.1.1981 at Mariana, District Bharuch on ad hoc basis. One of the conditions of his services was that the appointment of the appellant was till regularly selected candidates from Gujarat Public Service Commission (for short, "GPSC") was available. Between the period 1984 and 1999, he had been transferred to different Health Centres and lastly he was transferred to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad to work as R.O. in OPD department upto 2005. THE appellant has worked as such for 25 years. He also appeared in the examination conducted by the GPSC in October 2005 for selection of Medical Officers Class II. THE result of the examination was declared on 2.10.2005 and the appellant was selected by the GPSC and he has been given appointment as Medical Officer Class II by order dated 7.4.2006. THE respondents have terminated the services of the appellant by a simplicitor order dated 16.11.2005 which was served on the appellant on 23.12.2005 without casting any stigma on the appellant. When the appellant filed writ petition challenging his termination, in the counter affidavit, a stand was taken by the respondent authorities that some bungling was done by him in purchasing medicines and as he was an ad hoc appointee, no further regular departmental inquiry was conducted and he was terminated from service on the basis of the preliminary inquiry. THE appellant was a selected candidate for Doctors by GPSC and he could be appointed anywhere in Gujarat State. It was not a condition of the appointment letter that if he passes GPSC examination then he will be absorbed on the same post. Moreover, the appellant was due to retire in the year 2009 and he died in the same year i.e. on 31.10.2009. Since the appellant was an ad hoc employee and he was terminated by a simplicitor order, we do not find that he should be treated to be a regular employee or any monetary benefit will be available either to the appellant or to his legal heirs. In our view, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the Special Civil Application on the ground that no case was made out.