PRAVINSINH DOLATSINH RANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Letters Patent Appeals seek to challenge the same judgment by which the original petitioner is directed to be considered for employment with consequential benefits from a back-date. For the sake of convenience, the original petitioner is hereby referred as `the petitioner' and the original respondent is referred as `the respondent'.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was temporarily appointed as a multi-purpose health worker by an order dated 5.12.1988 subject to the condition, inter alia, of being subsequently selected by the Panchayat Selection Committee with the entire responsibility of passing through all the stages of selection procedure being upon the petitioner. When the petitioner was required to appear before the Selection Committee on or before 15.1.1991, he could not do so because of being posted in a remote village where he could not come to know about the advertisement issued to inform such appointees. Therefore, by an order dated 6.1.1992, his service was terminated and that order was under challenge in the petition. He also sought one more chance of appearing before the Selection Committee and regularization of his service in terms of the Government Circular dated 20.3.1992. After hearing the parties and the respondent offering to consider the case of the petitioner at the time of the next selection process expected to be undertaken in the year 1993-94, if the petitioner applied for the same, by an interim order, the petitioner was permitted to apply at such process. However, the meeting of the Selection Committee was held in the year 1996, when, under a separate order dated 24.6.1996 in a civil application, the petitioner was called for interview and he was selected and placed at serial No.3 in the selection list. But he was informed by letter dated 8.10.1996 that he could not be appointed on account of having crossed the age-limit prescribed by the recruitment rules. The other candidates selected along with the petitioner came to be appointed on 4.10.1996. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was within the age-limit at the time when he was first appointed.

(3.) Considering the above facts, the learned single Judge upheld the order of termination dated 6.1.1992 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to appear before the Selection Committee in December, 19/01/1991 whereby the condition of the first appointment was violated. However, in view of the fact that subsequently under the order of the Court the petitioner had appeared before the Selection Committee in 1996 and was also selected and another candidate below his place in the selection list was appointed and the petitioner was denied appointment only on the ground of age-bar, the petitioner was ordered to be considered for appointment by order dated 1.2.1999 with all consequential benefits except financial benefits for the period from 4.10.1996 to 1.2.1999. Thus, the petition came to be partly allowed on the basis of the interim orders and the facts unfolding during the pendency of the petition.