DALUBHAI R CHAUDHARUI Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, in all twelve, have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing and setting aside the order of respondent No.2 dated 1.6.1985 and also the order of the District Development Officer, Valsad, passed in Appeal No.179/1985 confirming the order of the Executive Engineer whereby services of the petitioners were terminated. The petitioners also prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal in Appeal Nos.278/1985 to 296/1985 on 31.5.1993. The petitioners also sought for the direction to the respondent to reinstate all the petitioners in job on their respective post and to order that the petitioners be allowed to perform their duties without any disturbance.

(2.) The case of the petitioners was that the petitioners were recruited in the office of the respondents regularly through Employment Exchange, after passing the selection examination somewhere in the year 1982. That ever since the petitioners have been serving continuously to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents. After some time, the services of the petitioners were discharged and again they were taken on job. The petitioners were continued in job on the post of Work-charge Road Clerk on different dates. The petitioners have worked continuously for six months and, thereafter, their services were terminated by the respondents. The petitioners were again taken on job after a gap of some days and were again continued for six months. During the period from 1982 till 31.5.1985 the petitioners worked for more than 240 days. The services of the petitioners came to an end by an order dated 1.6.1985 passed by the Executive Engineer.

(3.) The said order of the Executive Engineer was challenged by the petitioners before the District Development Officer. However, the District Development Officer has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Despite the fact that the petitioners were recruited through Employment Exchange in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and the other persons i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 25 were not recruited through Employment Exchange, the petitioners' services were terminated and the respondent Nos.3 to 25 have been continued in job.