P R PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, in this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for a writ of madamus directing respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in the cadre of Tracers, since they have been selected by the Panchayat Selection committee and got appointed.

(2.) The short facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioners are qualified candidates for the post of Tracer and therefore therie names were sent by the Employment Exchange to the District Development Officer, Sabarkantha District Panchayat and in response thereto, the petitioners were called for interview by the respondent no.3. Thereafter written test was also conducted by the respondent no.3. The petitioners appeared in the said interview and test and after successfully getting through the said examination, the petitioners were further called for oral interview.In oral interview also, the petitoners on getting success, were selected for the post of Tracer by the Panchayat selection committee, consisting of District Development Officer and other officers. Thereafter, selected candidates were appointed as Tracers by the order of the responent no. 3 in pursuance of their selection made by the office of the District Development Officer, sabarkantha as per Annexure A. said appointment was in accordance with sec. 203 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961. Further, the condition enumerated in appointment order is that the appiontment being temporary in nature and therefore, the selected candidates have to appear before the Gujarat Panchayat Servics Selection Committee and to get themselves selected, and if they failed to do so, their services are liable to be terminated. Accordingly, the petitioners were appointed in the year 1978-79. It is stated that the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Committee invited applications fro the post of Tracer by public advertisement in the year 1980 and in pusuace thereto, the petitioners have also applied for the said post. Petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee and have been declared passed and selected fro the post of Tracer has afvertised. It is also stated that in the Select List, the petitioner have been put below from Serial Nos. 1 to 15. It has been stated that the petitioner no.6-Shri R.B.Stwara could not pass in the examination, therefore, his name is not appeared in the Select List. The posts required to be filled in are only 15 in numbers and that too from the Select List and as the petitioners were put below from Serial Nos.l to 15, the services of the petitioners were sought to be terminated and selected candidates as per Select List from Serial Nos. 1 to 15 were ordererd to be appointed and posted in place of the present petitioners who were holding the said post since 1978-79. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court invoking extra-oridinaray jurisdiction under An. 226 of the Constition and sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner. It is stated that on account of interim order against their termination issued by this court, the petitioners are in service. It has been pointed outly Mrs. Mehta that while containing the ad-interim injunction, the interim relief in favour of petitioner no.6. was vacated as the petitioner no.6 could not pass the examination as aforesaid.

(3.) Mrs. Mehta, learned counsel apparing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that since the appointment of the petitioners is made by Selection Committee legally and validly constituted under Rules 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service selection Boad functions Rules 1964, and that the petitioners have complied with the conditions to appear before the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Committee and thereafter got themselves selected, their services could not be termiated and selected, candidates at Serial Nos.1 to 1.5 could not be appointed in their place, though the petitioners are put below in merits. Mrs. Mehta further contended that by laps of about 10 years of services which have been rendered by-the petitioners, on humanitarian ground also, their services could not be terminated. The petitioners, during these .10 years of service, have already reached upto the over age also and that they have actually.worked and acquired experience also in the department and that the petitioners are fully qualified and eligible for the post question and that they continued on the said post for more than 10 years, their service should not be terminated. In support of this argument, Mrs. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the view taken in the cased of H.C.Puitaswamy and others vs. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and others, reported in A.I.R. 1991 SC. P. 295, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that on humanitarian ground, all the appointees are directed to be treated as regularly appointed with all benefit of past service. She has also relied upon the same view taken in the case of State of U.P. and other vs. Sant Lal, reported in A.I.R; 1991 SC Page 1825. I see much force in the arguments of Mrs. Mchta that services rendered by the petitioners in the cadre of Tracer are for pretty long priod of 10 years and the appointment is no an irregular appointment but due process of recruitment rules were followed and as per service condition, they appeared in the examination and got selected and continuity of service of the petitioners cannot be deprived only becasuse they are put below in the merit list.