K D VOHRA Vs. KAMLESHBHAI GOBARBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of appeals has been preferred by persons who were appointed as ad hoc lecturers pending the availability of the regular recruits through the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC for short), to the post of Lecturer, Gujarat Educational Service, Class II, (Collegiate Branch), against the common judgement and order dated 15th July 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Special Civil Applications No.2395 of 2001 and other cognate matters which were filed by the candidates selected through the GPSC as per the Recruitment Rules applicable to the said post and rejecting the Special Civil Application No. 4396 of 2001 and other cognate matters which were filed by the ad hoc appointees, who were required to be replaced by the GPSC selectees.

(2.) In Special Civil Application No.2395 of 2001 and its cognate matters which were filed by the direct selectees through the GPSC, it was prayed that the petitioners should be appointed to the posts of Lecturer as per the recommendation of the GPSC. The GPSC had issued an advertisement on 15/06/1990 for recruitment to the posts of Lecturer, Gujarat Educational Services, Class II, (Collegiate Branch) to the Government Colleges in different subjects in respect of 475 vacancies which had arisen and many of which were being manned by the ad hoc appointees over a long period of time. According to these petitioners, they were duly selected by the GPSC and recommended for the post, and that, as per the extant instructions of the Government, the appointment pursuant to the GPSC recommendations could not have been delayed beyond the period of six months. It was pointed out that 300 lecturers were continued on ad hoc basis subject to the availability of the candidates selected through the GPSC, but, for the reasons best known to the Government, these regularly selected candidates were not issued appointments. Amongst these regularly selected candidates, there were also some candidates who while working on ad hoc basis came to be selected by the GPSC. Some of the ad hoc lecturers locally appointed were drawn from government schools from their Class III posts in which their lien was retained, while the rest were locally appointed direct on ad hoc basis. All the ad hoc appointees knew that they were to hold the post only till the availability of the GPSC candidates. Despite the PSC asking the Government to explain why the appointments were not being made pursuant to its recommendation, the Government was delaying the matter. These direct selectees therefore prayed for being appointed pursuant to their selection by the GPSC. As the matter now stands, appointment orders of 132 direct selectees were issued on 10th November 2001, and further appointments of 210 such GPSC selectees have been issued on 9th October 2002 after the decision of the learned Single Judge. It is stated that many of these have joined their posts except 123 direct selectees who, though appointed, are yet not posted in view of the interim orders which operated in favour of the ad hoc appointees.

(3.) In Special Civil Application No. 2992 of 2001 and other cognate matters, the contentions raised by the ad hoc appointees were almost common in all their petitions and their main grievance was that, though initially they were appointed on ad hoc basis, their appointments having been made after being selected by the local Committee constituted as per the resolution / circular dated 21/12/1992, which comprised of Joint Director of Education or Deputy Director as well as Principal and Lecturer of the respective college and one Expert from amongst the panel of Lecturers, in accordance with the requirements of the Recruitment Rules as regards the educational qualifications and they, having been continued for a number of years, have acquired a right to continue on the post of lecturer. Their appointments should be considered to have been duly regularized and they have a better right to hold the said post over the direct selectees. According to them, their appointments were made on the basis of merit after they were tested by the Interview Committee constituted under the aforesaid circular. It is contended by them that, since they had a long teaching experience and have been teaching in various colleges without any adverse reports against them, any action of discontinuing them for accommodating the fresh candidates was violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is also their case that the Government had regularised similar temporary employees as Doctors in Ayurvedic Colleges, as also the employees of the Narmada & Water Resources Department, without being required to undergo the process of selection through the GPSC. Denial of similar treatment to these ad hoc appointees was, therefore, violative of their fundamental right to equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as also their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The ad hoc lecturers therefore prayed that they should be regularised as Lecturers.