ANJUMAN A NAGORI Vs. GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 20th September 1995 terminating his service from the post of Junior Mechanic.

(2.) 1 The petitioner claims to be qualified Diploma Holder in Automobile Engineering. He was serving with respondent No. 1 Gujarat Agricultural University since 1982. He has given his family background stating that he is from a family of prominent social worker. He was intially appointed as Junior Mechanic as a daily wager in the year 1981. Thereafter he was called for interview by letter dated 30th June 1982. Prior to such interview, practical test and/or trade test was taken by the competent authority and thereafter on 8th July 1982, the then Director of Campus Shri Govindbhai K. Patel who later on became a Member of Parliament and then Vice Chancellor of Gujarat Agricultural University issued an appointment order appointing him as Junior Mechanic for two years probation period. The copy of the appointment order is found at Annexure B. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of interview he had produced all documents of marksheets and certificates. On completion of the probation period he was then confirmed as Junior Mechanic.

(3.) THE petitioner had challenged the above order initially by filing Special Civil Application No. 8415 of 1995 wherein this Court vide order dated 13th February 1986 directed the petitioner to make application to the respondent University with all the materials in support of his say that he was possessing qualification of diploma in Automobile Engineering. The respondent University was directed to take decision after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was provided in the said order that if the board of management was satisfied on the basis of material produced by the petitioner, it could revise the earlier decision of terminating the service of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in the matter. It was also provided in the said order that if the Board of Management noticed that any offence has been committed in the matter it would issue appropriate direction for lodging complaint in the matter. On the basis of above, the petition was permitted to be withdrawn. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent University through its Board of management rejected the application of the petitioner and confirmed the order of termination passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has thus challenged the order of his termination from service in this petition in the background of the above facts.