N.H. THAKER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to pass orders regarding the completion of the probation period of the petitioner, with effect from the date of the expiry of two years from the date of his appointment and to grant all the annual increments due to him, as well as arrears, with 12% interest.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Training Officer at the Adijati Training Center, Vadodara, under respondent No.2. By a Government Resolution ("GR") dated 03.01.1996, passed by respondent No.1 State of Gujarat, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Social Welfare Officer, ClassII, along with other candidates. As per the said GR, the petitioner was put on probation for a period of two years in the scale of Rs.2000/, subject to the condition that after the satisfactory completion of the probation period, his payscale would be decided and the probation period be considered for the payment of increments. Another condition imposed by the said GR was that the petitioner was to pass the Hindi and Gujarati examinations and, further, to pass the departmental examination, within two years and two chances. It was further stipulated that if the petitioner failed to pass the departmental examination within the stipulated period of time, his period of probation could be extended, and he could even be terminated. It was however, stipulated that each case would be examined on its own merits. Even as per the District Social Welfare Officer and Nomadic Tribes Welfare Officer (Conditions of Service relating to Departmental Examination) Rules 1970 ("the Recruitment Rules" for short), the petitioner was to pass the departmental examinations within two chances, in two years. The first examination after the appointment of the petitioner was held on 22.08.1998 and 23.08.1998. The petitioner did not appear in the said examinations as, according to him, he had met with an accident. It appears that the petitioner had requested for exemption in the examinations by his letters dated 16.07.1998 and 21.08.1998. By a memorandum dated 17.09.1998, the Director, Social Welfare Department, stated that as the petitioner could not appear in the departmental examinations which were held on 22.08.1998 and 23.08.1998, for reasons stated in his letters dated 16.07.1998 and 21.08.1998, it was decided after due consideration to exempt the petitioner from that particular chance, as if no chance of appearing in the departmental examination had been availed by him. According to the petitioner, the respondents have not held any departmental examinations thereafter, upto 25.04.2005, on which date the petitioner submitted his resignation. It is the case of the petitioner that though he continued to remain on probation till the acceptance of his resignation, no order extending the period of probation had been passed. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for the grant of annual increments after a period of two years on probation. In this regard, the petitioner addressed a communication dated 28.05.2002, to respondent No.2, who replied by a letter dated 22.07.2002, stating that the annual increments of the petitioner could only be granted after he is confirmed in service. Various communications ensued between the petitioner and the respondents in this regard. Ultimately, by a letter dated 04.07.2003, the respondents informed the petitioner that his request for the grant of increments cannot be accepted as his period of probation had not come to an end. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr.Samir B.Gohil, learned advocate for Mr.I.S.Supehia, learned counsel for the petitioner, that though the petitioner has not passed the departmental examinations, the fact remains that he was exempted from the first chance of appearing in the said examinations. No examinations have been held thereafter, as is admitted by the respondents in their affidavitinreply.