UKAWALA MUKESHKUMAR HIRABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the points involved in these petitions are common, all these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners are serving as ad hoc Junior Pharmacists in the State Government and are discharging para-medical duties. Regular appointment of the Junior Pharmacist is to be made by way of selection process, which is to be undertaken by the Gujarat Gaun Seva Pasandgi Mandal. Since the process of selection was likely to take some time, and in view of the urgency for the purpose of recruiting Junior Pharmacists, the State of Gujarat, in its Health and Family Welfare Department, passed a Resolution dated 13.3.2001, by which it was resolved to fill up 433 posts in the para-medical cadre, as per the Recruitment Rules, and only by way of ad hoc appointment. The said Resolution, though not placed either in the petition nor even in the affidavit-in-reply, was made available by the learned Advocates at the time of hearing of these petitions and with the consent of the parties, the same is taken on record. Clause 4 of the said Resolution dated 13.3.2001 provides that the Department may also find out the viability whether the Scheme which is applicable in the Education Department for the purpose of recruiting teachers, can also be made applicable for the purpose of filling up posts in the para-medical cadre. In Clause 5 of the Resolution, it is also provided that in view of the urgent need of the Health Department, the sanction is given to fill up 433 posts in the para-medical cadre as per the Recruitment Rules and only on ad hoc basis. In Clause 6 of the said G.R., it is specifically provided that posts in question fall within the purview of the Subordinate Staff Selection Board. The said posts can be filled in for a period of one year on ad hoc basis or till the regularly selected candidates are available, whichever is earlier. In view of the aforesaid Resolution and in view of the permission granted by the Department for filling up the aforesaid posts, the public advertisement was given, inviting applications for the purpose of filling up of the said posts.

(3.) The petitioners, at the relevant time, applied for such appointment, and, ultimately, the petitioners were appointed for a period of one year on the post of Junior Pharmacists in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. As per the appointment order, the said appointment is given on ad hoc basis for a period of one year or till appropriate selected candidate is available, whichever is earlier. Copy of one of the appointment orders issued to the petitioner is annexed in Special Civil Application No.4596 of 2003 at page 15, Annexure 'B'. The petitioners also gave necessary undertaking to the Department, stating that since their appointment is only for a period of one year or till the selected candidate is available, whichever is earlier, if the services of the petitioners are to be terminated on the expiry of the said period, the petitioners will accept such termination of their services. Such undertaking is taken from all the petitioners and it is also annexed along with the petition. Since the tenure appointment of the petitioners was coming to an end, the Department passed an order dated 27th March, 2003, which is annexed at Annexure 'A' to Special Civil Application No.4596 of 2003, by which the services of the petitioners were terminated with effect from the date mentioned in the said order. The period of one year is taken into consideration from the date on which the candidates joined their services. In view of the aforeaid order, at Annexure 'A', the petitioners approached this Court, challenging the said termination order on the ground that the petitioners are entitled to serve till regularly selected candidates are available. It is submitted that the Department wants to replace the petitioners, by appointing another set of ad hoc employees by giving fresh appointment orders to them. By filing these petitions, it is prayed that the impugned termination order may be set aside and that their services may be regularised from the date of their appointment. It is also prayed that the Department may be directed to continue them in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000, in which they were initially appointed by the first order. There are 33 petitioners, in all, in this bunch of petitions and as per the particulars given by Mr.Kamal Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General, out of the said 33 employees, three employees, viz., Vaghela Rajeshkumar Baldevbhai, who is the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.4809 of 2003, Jigar Natvarlal Joshi, petitioner in Special Civil Application No.12009 of 2003, and Ketan G. Pandya, petitioner No.1 in Special Civil Application No.5551 of 2003, have left their services on their own and that, they are not in service. Mr.Trivedi also further submitted that so far as the remaining 30 petitioners are concerned, 25 petitioners approached this Court before passing the termination order at Annexure 'A' and accordingly, they have been continued in service by virtue of the status quo order, and they were continued in the pay scale in which they were initially appointed by their original appointment order. He submitted that so far as the remaining five employees are concerned, since they have not approached this Court earlier, i.e. at the time of passing the termination order, they have been reappointed, but they have been given fixed salary. Further, the learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that even though the requisition was for 433 posts, ultimately, 137 posts are filled in.