STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ASHWINKUMAR NATHALAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat against the judgment and order dated 26.3.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4321 of 2011 whereby the respondent- petitioner was directed to be reinstated with benefits which he would be entitled for.

(2.) THE respondent-original petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Statistician under the ICMR Project at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad vide appointment letter dated 29.1.1985. When the said project was discontinued, the respondent came to be absorbed vide order dated 31.3.1987 in the services of the appellants. THE intervening period from 1.10.1985 to 31.3.1987 was treated as leave without pay and allowances and the break was accordingly condoned. Thus, for all practical purposes the service has to be treated continuous and without break from 29.1.1985 i.e. from the date of initial appointment. After seven years of the order of absorption, a show cause notice dated 23.2.1994 came to be issued calling for explanation as to why the respondent's appointment should not be cancelled on the ground that he was not qualified on the date of absorption, as per the applicable rules. THE respondent preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6318 of 1994 wherein his service was protected and he was asked to make representation to the appellants within 15 days. THE said petition came to be disposed of by order dated 6.11.2009. THE respondent, by letter dated 19.11.2009, demanded copies of recruitment rules and regulations which had not been supplied, while he was called for personal hearing on 16.11.2010. THE respondent had submitted his written submissions. Without considering the written submissions, the services of the respondent came to be terminated w.e.f. 20.11.2010. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred Special Civil Application No.4321 of 2011 by which the impugned order of termination was set aside and the present appellants were directed to reinstate the respondent with benefits to which he would be entitled. This order is under challenge by the present appellants.