DINESH SHIVUBHA PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent authorities to regularise his services by giving him permanent appointment in Class-IV post in the Civil Hospital, Limdi and for granting all consequential benefits flowing from the regularisation and permanent absorption on the set up of the Hospital.

(2.) To appreciate the contentions raised in the petition, relevant facts may now be stated. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed by an order dated 15/04/1981 on purely temporary basis for a period of 29 days as a peon, in the pay scale of Rs. 196.00 and other admissible allowances in accordance with law. It was mentioned in the said order that since the said appointment was purely temporary, his services were liable to be terminated at any time without issuing any notice. The petitioner accepted said appointment and joined the service. It appears that thereafter, various orders came to be passed for 29 days on the same line on which the first order was passed. The petitioner came to know that in Limdi and Surendranagar Government Hospital, regular appointments were to be made and he, therefore, made an application to the Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Limdi on 14/12/1985 and requested that in view of the fact that he had served in the Hospital in past as peon, he should be appointed to the said post instead of appointing a new person. Said request was also made by the petitioner by making an application to the Hon'ble Minister of Health. It is the case of the petitioner that since nothing was done by the respondent authorities and since he was not made permanent nor his services were regularised nor was he called for interview for appointment on regular basis and apprehended termination the approached this Court by filing this petition.

(3.) Mrs. Dawawala for Mr. P. B. Majmudar, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised a number of contentions. She submitted that the petitioner is working since 1981 and thus he has completed a number of years in service with the hospital. The break which is given can be said to be "artificial break" as held in various decisions of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court as also of this Court which cannot come in the way of the petitioner in getting permanancy benefits and regularisation of services. She further submitted that services of a number of persons similarly situated to that of the petitioner have been regularised and they have been made permanent. By not making the petitioner permanent and not regularising his services, respondent authorities have acted arbitrarily, discriminatory and unreasonably and the said action is thus violative of Arts. 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. She also submitted that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments without admitting it that regular appointment can always be made to the post of peon, there was no earthly reason for the respondent authorities not to allow the petitioner to compete with other similarly situated candidates and therefore, in any case, to that extent, the action of the respondent authorities requires to be interfered with by this Court. Reliance was also placed on a number of decisions of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court as well as of this Court including the decisions in the case of Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors., reported in AIR 1986 SC 180, Sushilkumar Yadunath Jha v. Union of India & Anr., reported in AIR 1986 SC 1636, Mariamben Amirbhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in [1985 (2)] XXVI (2) GLR 946 and the decision of R. C. Mankad, J. in Spl. C. A. No. 711 of 1985 decided on 3/07/1985.