DAYALJI D KANJARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the order dated 14.6.2013 passed by respondent No.2 - Gujarat Ayurvedic University whereby the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Office Superintendent with respondent No.3 - Institute of Post Graduate Teaching and Research in Ayurved (for short "I.P.G.T.& R.A.") has been terminated and the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Stenographer Grade -III with respondent No.3.

(2.) THE broad facts of the case are such that the petitioner herein initially joined respondent No.3 - I.P.G.T.& R.A., as Stenographer (English) Grade -III on 28.1.1986. The post of Stenographer (English) Grade -III has been upgraded by the Government of India to the level of Stenographer Grade -II -cum -PA to Dean and the petitioner came to be appointed on the upgraded post on 1.1.1998. Vide office order dated 28.1.2003, the petitioner came to be reverted to the lower grade of Stenographer Grade -III and hence, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.4836 of 2003 before this Court which is pending. The respondent No.3 - I.P.G.T.& R.A., issued an advertisement on 18.9.2008 inviting applications for various posts which were vacant in respondent No.3 -I.P.G.T.& R.A., and out of about 16 posts advertised, one post was for the Office Superintendent at item No.7 in the said advertisement. On the basis of the said advertisement, the petitioner had applied in the prescribed form along with the enclosures. There were about 29 applications received for which respondent No.3 - I.P.G.T.& R.A., had appointed a Scrutiny Committee consisting of six persons and the said committee short listed the applications and about 17 candidates were called for interview including the present petitioner which was to be conducted on 2/3rd January 2009. Accordingly, the petitioner remained present before the Staff Selection Committee consisting of as many as seven persons. Only 16 candidates were successfully interviewed and the petitioner came to be selected by the Staff Selection Committee for the appointment on the post of Office Superintendent and accordingly recommendations were sent for approval of the Board. The Board in its 14th Meeting held on 5.2.2009 approved the said appointment. On the basis of the said approval given by the Board, respondent No.2 - the Gujarat Ayurvedic University issued the order of appointment on the post of Office Superintendent on probation for a period of two years. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the services with effect from 9.2.2009 itself who was otherwise working on the post of Stenographer Grade -II with respondent Nos.2 and 3. On or about in October 2009, a team consisting of three officers appointed by the Government of India came to Jamnagar for conducting an inquiry and investigate into the complaints of alleged administrative and financial irregularities. The said team visited respondent No.3 from 4/7th November 2009 and submitted its report. One of the allegations was with regard to the appointment of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice dated 5.3.2012 written by Shri J.G.Vohra, retired Deputy Secretary and Inquiry Officer. In response to the said notice, the petitioner gave a detailed reply dated 16.3.2012 pointing out each and every fact and also produced documentary evidence.

(3.) IT is mainly contended by learned counsel Mr.Hriday Buch for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction as any action required to be taken against the petitioner is to be taken by respondent No.3 in consultation with the Board. In his submission, the Vice Chancellor and/or the Registrar of respondent No.2 does not have any jurisdiction and/or authority to pass any order against the petitioner. He further submitted that the impugned order is passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard is given to the petitioner. He further submitted that the impugned order itself suggests that the order is passed only on the basis of the Inquiry Officer's report and as the petitioner has been appointed by the Board, it is only the Board who has an authority to pass order against the petitioner.