RATANSING PRATAPSINH BARIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by this petition challenges the order of termination of his service. The petitioner further challenged the order on the ground that the said order of termination is in breach of provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as relying on certain rules as the grant of grace marks, other employees are declared and retained in service. However, he is not given the benefit of such rules and grace marks thereunder, and is removed from service on the ground that he has failed in the alleged examination. The order of termination is also challenged on the ground that it is bad in law inasmuch as the same is passed without a notice required under Rule 89 of the Gujarat Police Manual, 1975. The order is also challenged on the ground that the same is passed with retrospective effect in as much as the order is dated 14/05/1984, while the termination thereby is with effect from 1/05/1984. The petitioner has also challenged the order Annexure 2 dated 21-4-1984 on the ground that the same is without authority, beyond the jurisdiction of the authority, being in contravention of the provisions of the Manual and also that the said resolution does not apply to the Police force. It also discriminates between Police and Police appearing at the examination. It is in contravention of principles of natural justice in as much as the same was not brought to the notice of the examinees, and in particular the petitioner, and not applicable in any case to the case of the petitioner.

(2.) The order of termination is supported by the learned A.G.P. Ms. Rekha Doshit on the ground that in view of the provisions of the rules, circular and G. R. the petitioner is not entitled to any grace marks as claimed and the petitioner as declared fail is proper and just and according to law. She contended that the instance cited by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration to compare with the case of the petitioner for the reason that in the alleged instances the grace marks were given by mistake and the State is not required to continue that mistake in perpetuity and for the same necessary order for correcting the same mistake is issued. The petitioner is, therefore, declared fail as was not entitled to grace marks as claimed. Ms. Doshit also contended that the petitioner is not an employee of the State or a Government servant as defined in the Bombay Civil Services Rules ('BCSR' for short) and, therefore, is not entitled to notice before termination under Rule 23 of the BCSR or Rule 89 of the Gujarat Police Manual. She also contended that the order of termination is not with retrospective effect. The petitioner stood relieved from 1/05/1983 as per the order of the Principal of the Training School and thus the order of termination Annexure 'A' is not an order with retrospective effect.

(3.) Few facts necessary to appreciate the contention of the petitioner are in precise as under.