KARSHANBHAI N GOHEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is filed by the original plaintiffs who filed Regular Civil Suit No.670 of 1984 seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents ­ original defendants.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs in their suit is that the plaintiffs are serving as junior clerks in the office of the defendant No.2. The plaintiffs were appointed by the defendant No.2 by calling their names from the Employment Exchange on 15.03.1979 and such interview was for the post of Work Charge Clerk. The plaintiffs' appointments were till the appointment of the regular clerks from the office of the Collector. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that thereafter, there were specific instructions for appointing the plaintiffs as Work Charge Clerk, still other four employees who were also called for interview with the plaintiffs, were appointed as Work Charge Clerk. It is further case of the plaintiffs that right from their appointment as Junior Clerks in the month of April 1979, they have been continuously discharging their duties but when the Central Recruitment Scheme had taken place for the purpose of regular appointments for the post of junior clerks, the plaintiffs were not called for interview. The plaintiff No.2, therefore, filed Regular Civil Suit No.82 of 1982 praying for direction to the defendants to call him for interview under Central Recruitment Scheme. The said suit was still pending. It is further averred that when candidates were appointed from the office of the Collector on Work Charge setup, the plaintiffs were required to be absorbed on such Work Charge setup. However, no such steps by the office of the Collector were taken and thus, the plaintiffs were denied their right to be appointed as Work Charge setup and the persons juniors to the plaintiffs came to be appointed as Work Charge Clerk whereas the plaintiffs were deprived of such benefits and the defendants are now trying to relieve the plaintiffs from the post of the junior clerks. The plaintiffs have thus prayed to absorb the plaintiffs on Work Charge setup with effect from the date on which juniors of the plaintiffs came to be absorbed on Work Charge setup and to further declare that the defendants have got no right or authority to relieve the plaintiffs till the juniors to the plaintiffs are continued in service as Work Charge Clerk. The plaintiffs have further prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from relieving the plaintiffs from their present posts.

(3.) LEARNED Trial Judge on the basis of the pleadings framed following issues at Ex.70.