NAYANABEN YOGENDRABHAI PANDYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present appeal, the appellant has sought to challenge the judgment and order dated 28/07/2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8517 of 1993, by which the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the said petition. In the Special Civil Application it was prayed to set aside the order dated 09-10/05/1984 appointing the present appellant original petitioner on compassionate ground with condition therein that she has to pass the Pre-service Training Examination and further to give the petitioner fourth chance of appearing in the Pre-service Training Examination.

(2.) Learned counsel Ms. Pandya, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground and the petitioner being a widow, she was required to be given additional chance to clear the Pre-Service Training Examination, which in the present case, was not given. She submitted that, for the appointment of widow on compassionate ground, the Government has provided that over and above three regular chances, additional chances, in all six chances, are also required to be given. She also submitted that while the interim relief was operating in the main petition and consequently, the petitioner was continued in service, there were no complaints against her performance. She further submitted that the petitioner has completed 25 years of service and a very short period has remained towards her superannuation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that by order of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6278 of 1993, the fourth trial was permitted to the similarly situated employee. Ultimately, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present appeal may be allowed and the order impugned in this appeal may be quashed and set aside.

(3.) As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ashar drew our attention to affidavit in reply filed by one Shri R. B. Baria, Under Secretary, General Administration Department at page 26, more particularly page 27 and vehemently submitted that the instructions issued under Annexure 'C' (communication dated 15/05/1989) to the main petition were issued under confidential letter and not by a circular or resolution or any order. He has drawn our attention to the Office Order dated 21/08/1993 at Annexure 'D', related to the present appellant and submitted that while relieving her from service, she was specifically directed that additional grace chance can be availed by her sitting at home but the appellant had not availed nor complied with said direction and requested that present appeal may be dismissed.