THAKKER VARSHABEN ARVINDBHAI Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a qualified doctor-Bachelor of Dental Surgery is before this Court challenging order dated 27.03.1997 whereby the services of the petitioner are brought to an end, on the ground that on the date of appointment the petitioner had not completed the internship. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was communicated by Office Order dated 12.09.1996 that she is selected for being appointed as Dental Surgeon. It was mentioned in the said Office Order that the aforesaid candidates will have to obtain, "detailed appointment orders' by reporting to the officer mentioned in column (4). In item-5 of the said Office Order it is mentioned that, 'the Divisional Deputy Director (Health & Medical Services), Rajkot' will issue appointment order to the petitioner and before that the authority will verify the credential in original. In the same Office Order there is an enclosure providing conditions for appointment. The first condition is that, 'an appointee will have to report at the place of appointment, 'within seven days from the date of receipt of appointment order', failing which the appointment order will stand automatically cancelled and no representation will be taken into consideration'. It is the case of the petitioner that accordingly the Divisional Deputy Director (Health and Medical Services), Rajkot issued an order of appointment on 30.09.1996 and pursuant to that the petitioner reported for duty on 01.10.1996 and she was allowed to resume.

(2.) Mr.Pujara, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the order under challenge dated 27.03.1997 is an act of 'non application of mind' inasmuch as the ground on which appointment of the petitioner is cancelled is, 'non existent'. He submitted that the petitioner had completed her internship on 30.09.1996. Thereafter as mentioned in Office Order dated 12.09.1996 she reported to the Divisional Deputy Director (Health & Medical Services), Rajkot who issued appointment order dated 30.09.1996 pursuant to which she reported for duty on 01.10.1996 and she was allowed to resume. He submitted that in view of these facts to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground that on the date of appointment the petitioner did not complete her internship is nothing but an act of non application of mind and therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside by this Court.

(3.) Mr.Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that the order under challenge is vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain her case to the authorities and put forward the relevant facts for consideration of the authority. Learned Assistant Government Pleader is not able to point out anything on record to show that before issuing order dated 27.03.1997 the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing to present her case. On that short ground the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.