HARDIK BHARATBHAI TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the discriminatory act on the part of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for regular appointment and in continuing the services of the petitioners on ad-hoc basis. Despite the fact that even before the declaration of results and issuance of appointment letters in favour of the petitioners for the post of Civil Judge pursuant to the advertisement dtd. 28/11/2016 and thereafter, the regular posts not only were sanctioned, but, were made available to the knowledge of the respondent no.2. The alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in not converting the services of the petitioners who are in service as Civil Judges into regular appointment, according to the petitioners, amount to an act of discrimination.

(2.) It is further averred that a situation has arisen that the new advertisement dtd. 16/5/2017 for the recruitment of Civil Judges was published after the result of the petitioners was out and this subsequent appointment would march over the petitioners who are already in service, as the new advertisement mentions the sanctioned regular post. 2.1. It is the grievance of the petitioner that less meritorious candidates would be appointed on regular basis as compared to the petitioners and others who are already in service and serving as Civil Judges in the State of Gujarat. It is further averred that despite the appointment order of the petitioners, stating that once other factors are in favour of persons like the petitioners, and the regular vacancies are available as per Rules, the case of the petitioners would be considered. 2.2. It is also their say that occasion had arisen prior to declaration of results about the regular vacancies, the strength being increased and the effect of those regular vacancies were to be given effect to in cases where petitioners would be eligible after date 4/5/2017 and 16/5/2017 when the sanctioned strength for the regular appointment was, in fact, increased. The petitioners seek direction against the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners against the regular vacancies from the date of their initial appointments with consequential benefits and seniority. 2.3. The petitioners participated in the recruitment process for the post of Civil Judges pursuant to the advertisement No. RC/079/2016. They were declared successful candidates, however, they were given ad-hoc appointment though the regular posts were available on the date of their appointment and posting. It is also their say that many regular posts were sanctioned by the State Government, however, the petitioners were ignored and no regular appointments were given. 2.4. The candidates, who are appointed subsequent to the petitioners, on the basis of regular posts are given seniority though they have undergone the very recruitment process provided under the law. Thus, the inaction on the part of the respondents, is alleged to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The prayers sought for are as follows:-