NARESH TRIKAMLAL BRAHMBHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms.Harsha Devani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally and it is accordingly disposed of by this Judgment.

(2.) The petitioner, who was selected as Class I Officer in Gujarat Administrative Service, has challenged the order dated 13.2.1990, cancelling his appointment order as well as the subsequent order of the Department dated 9.12.2000, by which his representation is rejected.

(3.) The petitioner had applied for appointment to the aforesaid Class I post in response to the advertisement issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission in November, 1985, by which applications were invited for combined competitive examination for the post of Gujarat Administrative Service Class I and Gujarat Civil Services Class I and II. The petitioner was, ultimately, selected by the GPSC and the name of the petitioner was kept at Serial No.18 in the select list of Class I Officers. On the basis of the aforesaid selection, the petitioner was to be appointed in the cadre of Gujarat Administrative Service Class I, as "Deputy Collector". It is required to be noted that the said advertisement of 1985 was issued for the posts which were created for the year 1983, 1984 and 1985. It is also required to be noted that the select list, in which the name of the petitioner figured, was for the vacancies, which had remained vacant for about 5 to 6 years. On the basis of the selection, the selected candidates were informed by the Department by way of telegram, asking them to report for duty on 26/12/1989 at SPIPA. Copy of such telegram is annexed by the petitioner at Annexure `A', by which he was asked to remain present for duty on 26.12.1989. The said telegram is dated 22.12.1989. On the basis of the aforesaid telegraphic message, the petitioner remained present at the said place on the aforesaid date and on that very day, i.e. 26.12.1989, the appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner. The said appointment order was given to all the selected candidates, including the present petitioner. It is mentioned in Clause 8(4) of the said appointment order that the selected candidate will be on probation for a period of two years and that the appointment in question is purely temporary and ad hoc. It is mentioned in Clause 8(2) of the said order that if a candidate fails to report at the relevant date for the purpose of training, his appointment shall stand cancelled unless some genuine reasons are pressed into service by such candidate for not reporting for training within the stipulated time. It has also been further provided in paragraph 8(4) that the appointment in question will be subject to the outcome of medical examination. It is mentioned in the said order in Clause 14 that after completing two years' probation period satisfactorily and after completing the training and after passing the departmental examination, the Officers shall be absorbed on the relevant post. On the basis of the said order, most of the selected candidates resumed duty on the very date, i.e. 26.12.1989. However, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, he requested the Department to give him some extension of time for the purpose of joining duty, as, at the relevant time, the petitioner wanted to be sure that he is able to come out successful in the medical examination. There was some correspondence between the petitioner and the Department in connection with extension of time. In the meantime, the petitioner also reported for medical examination on 9/01/1990, but since some further examination was required, he was asked to report again to the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, on any other subsequent date, as mentioned in the letter dated 16.1.1990, which is at Annexure `G', page 35. It is required to be noted that, in the meanwhile, on 4th January, 1990, the petitioner made a representation to the Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Gandhinagar, wherein he pointed out that since he is serving in the Reserve Bank of India since last 10 years, and in order to resume his duty as Deputy Collector, he will be required to give resignation from the Bank's service and for that purpose, it would be necessary for him to give one month's notice. He has also stated in the said letter dated 4.1.1990 that it was not possible for him to resume duty on 26.12.1989. He also pointed out that as per the condition prescribed in Clause 8(4) of the appointment order, his appointment is subject to medical examination and, therefore, in case he fails the medical test, his appointment can be cancelled and under such circumstances, he will be at peril of losing both the employments, i.e. employment with the Bank as well as employment with the State Government. He, therefore, requested that in view of the aforesaid practical difficulty on his part, he may be permitted to report for duty only after the medical report is available so that he can give necessary notice to the Bank. On that ground, he requested that some extension may be given for the purpose of reporting for duty. The Section Officer of the GAD informed the petitioner by letter dated 12th January, 1990 that the petitioner is given time upto 15th January, 1990 for the purpose of resumption of his duty. The petitioner was asked to report by evening of 15th January, 1990 at the office of Commissioner, Sardar Patel Institute of Public Administration, Ahmedabad, which is known as "SPIPA". The petitioner was also informed by the said letter that no further extension will be given to him and in case, by the aforesaid date of 15.1.1990, the petitioner fails to resume duty, his appointment shall be treated to have been cancelled. However, on the very next day, i.e. on 13.1.1990, the petitioner addressed another letter to the Deputy Secretary of the GAD, wherein he pointed out that he had already undergone medical examination on 9/01/1990 and requested the Department to inform him about the outcome of the said medical examination. He also pointed out that he is required to give one month's notice to the Bank for the purpose of resigning from his existing service from the Bank. He also requested that after ascertaining the outcome of the Medical Report, he will report for duty after giving appropriate notice to the Bank. Under the circumstances, he again prayed for extension of time for the purpose of resumption of duty. In the meanwhile, as stated earlier, the petitioner was informed by another letter dated 16.1.1990 by the Medical Board that he may again remain present for further medical examination.