SHAMJI BHIKHABHAI MOYADA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for two-fold relief. He has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 21.09.1998 terminating his services. The second prayer is for a direction to the respondent to regularize his services by appointing him in regular Class IV appointment and give all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner was given a temporary appointment as Manager/ Assistant in the Mid Day Meal Scheme in primary school as Sagariawadi village of Taluka Khambhaliya. Having been appointed initially in 1992, his services came to be extended by issuing orders every time for 29 days. In 1994 he was shifted from Mid Day Meal Scheme and appointed on another Class IV post of Chowkidar at Grass Depot. Again his appointment came to be extended time to time as temporary employee. It appears that Mamaltdar, Khambhaliya, where the petitioner was serving, issued a show cause notice dated 15.07.1998 calling for explanation from the petitioner for his inefficient performance of duty and for not attending the duty for full hours and thus remaining negligent. THE petitioner replied to that notice on 21.07.1998 denying the allegations, stating further that driver of respondent No.4 had misbehaved with him for which he had to lodge police complaint and because of that incident, false allegations about inefficiency in service were raised, even as he had been discharging the duties diligently and regularly. By order dated 21.09.1998, services of the petitioner was terminated.

(3.) THIS court considered the submissions in respect of the termination order then passed against the petitioner. However, as the petitioner has opted to make a representation to the respondent authorities with regard to his claim for regularization of service, which is being permitted under the present order, it is deemed expedient not to go into the merits of the legality of the termination order so that it may not either way influence the consideration of petitioner representation by the respondent in their decision making process.