STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SIRESIYA MANILAL M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants-original respondents challenging the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 07.04.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3240 of 2000, wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent-original petitioner has been partly allowed for the reasons stated in the judgment and order dated 24.02.2004 passed in Special Civil application No. 9988 of 1999 with direction to consider the case of the respondent-original petitioner for appointment on permanent post in Class-TV and if the permanent posts are found vacant, he shall be appointed on the same in accordance with his claim in the matter of seniority and concerned Regulations and if otherwise he is not ineligible. The learned single Judge was further pleased to direct that the appointment should not be denied on the ground of overage or on the ground that it may amount to giving a backdoor entry. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent-original petitioner was appointed as Sweeper (Safai Kamgar) on daily wage basis since 03.06.1996 by the Social Welfare Officer (ST), Gandhinagar and he was working since then and similarly situated such temporary employees were made regular. Therefore, he made a representation for making his services regular but the concerned department refused to make his services regular. Consequently therefore, he has preferred the aforesaid writ petition before the Court, wherein the aforesaid directions came to be issued by the learned single Judge.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned AGP, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned advocate, appearing for the respondent.

(3.) Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned AGP for the appellants argued that the respondent-employee was employed on hourly basis and he was working as a part timer and therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, such part time services cannot be regularized. Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned AGP further pointed out that the respondent in the instant case was not appointed after due selection process, but work was taken by him on the basis of Government Resolutions dated 5.4.1997 and 23.09.1998 as part time employees Class-IV without following any selection process, whereas in Special Civil Application No. 9988 of 1999, relied by the learned single Judge, the petitioners were appointed after selection based on their qualification and eligibility on fixed tenure.