USHABEN JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the Notice Annexure 'C' to the petition dated 16/ 17/02/1984 issued to her by respondent No. 2, the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. By that notice, respondent No. 2 has directed that the petitioner would be relieved from the service on the expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice by the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for a relief of quashing and setting aside the Resolution No. Bharat-1176-K, dated 20/11/1976 Annexure 'E' (it should really be Annexure 'D') to the petition, in so far as it does not provide for exemption from passing the post-training examination to the persons like the petitioner, whose appointments have been regularised and who have put in less than two years of service as on 1/04/1976. She has also prayed that after quashing the aforesaid resolution, a further relief be granted to the effect that the petitioner is exempt from passing the post-training examination. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed for a relief for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid resolution in so far as it relates to "two years or more continuous service as on 1/04/1976", and a relief in the nature of direction to the respondents to exempt the petitioner from passing the post-training examination.

(2.) . Upon her name being recommended by the Divisional Employment Exchange Office, Ahmedabad under Annexure 'A' dated 9/01/1975, the petitioner came to be appointed to officiate as temporary Junior Clerk in the office of the Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State at Ahmedabad, purely as a local and temporary arrangement in the vacancy of one Shri N. A. Vora, Junior Clerk who had been promoted. In para 2 of that Annexure 'A', the petitioner was informed that her appointment was temporary and was liable to be terminated at any time, also when the candidates selected by the Departmental Selection Committee were available.

(3.) . The petitioner's appointment as a Junior Clerk as aforesaid was irregular for it did not conform to the Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerks, Clerk-Typists and Typists (Direct Recruitment Procedure) Rules, 1970 ("DRP Rules" for short). The DRP Rules form part of the Centralised Recruitment Scheme. It appears that the petitioner and quite a large number of others like the petitioner who came to be sponsored by the local Employment Exchanges were appointed to the posts of Clerks, Clerk-Typists, Typists, etc. pending availability of the candidates selected through the Centralised Recruitment Scheme or under the DRP Rules.