ATULKUMAR VIKRAMBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 1/1/2015 passed by the concerned respondent authority.

(2.) Heard learned advocate, Mrs. Falguni Patel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rohan Shah for the respondent no.1 and learned advocate, Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the respondent nos.2 and 3.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to the averments made in the memo of petition and, thereafter, contended that the respondent - Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board had issued advertisement for the recruitment for the post of "Panchayat Sahayak" and pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted an application and after following due procedure, the respondent - board appointed the petitioner on the post of "Panchayat Sahayak" in a fixed pay of Rs.2500.00 p.m. It is further submitted that while the petitioner was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri, Falu, a show cause notice dtd. 26/10/2012 came to be issued to the petitioner with regard to his absenteeism in the meeting, which was scheduled on 26/12/2012, to which, the petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, the chargesheet came to be issued to the petitioner and pursuant to the said chargesheet, the petitioner also submitted his reply and, thereafter, the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was withdrawn. At this stage, it is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner had completed five years of service on 17/3/2013 and, therefore, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent authority with a request that he may be absorbed in regular pay scale as per the policy of the State Government. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner was thereafter recommended by the Taluka Development Officer, however, the concerned respondent authority did not consider the case of the petitioner for absorption in regular pay scale. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner came to know that he was not absorbed in regular pay scale as the petitioner has not completed Course of Computer Concepts ( hereinafter referred to as the "CCC" for short) examination prescribed by the Government. However, learned advocate submitted that no examination was conducted by the respondent authorities. Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to Clause No.20 of the terms and conditions of the appointment order. It is submitted that as per Clause No.20, after completion of five years' satisfactory service, the concerned candidate is deemed to have been appointed on regular post.