PARMAR NARANBHAI TOKARBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Deletion of names from the select list is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. The petitioners herein have submitted their applications for the appointment to the post of 'clerk', in response to the advertisement dated 5-10-1987 issued by the District Collector and Chairman District Selection Committee, Mehsana inviting applications from eligible candidates for the purpose of filling up vacancies in the cadre of 'clerk'. In the aforesaid advertisement, 30 vacancies were reserved for ex-servicemen. As stated earlier, in response to the advertisement, the petitioners applied for getting appointment in the ex-servicemen quota. The petitioners were issued call letters asking them to appear for interview, which was to be held on 24th June, 1988. According to the petitioners, they remained present before the District Selection Committee and were subjected to interview by the selection committee for selection to the post of clerk. Subsequently, the petitioners were informed that they are selected in the interview and placed at serial Nos.149, 151, 153, 154, 157, 158, 160, 165, 167, 168 and 170 respectively in the select list for the cadre of 'clerk', which was prepared in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement. Subsequently, respondent No.2 issued appointment orders appointing the petitioners by operating the select list prepared under the Centralized Recruitment Scheme, 1970. According to the petitioners, the petitioners were also given posting orders and they also resumed their duty as 'clerk' in February, 1990. It is averred in the petition that petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 have undergone pre-service training as required under Gujarat Non Secretariat Clerks and Clerk-Typist (Training and Examination) Rules, 1970. Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 have also appeared in the post training examination as required under the said Rules. Similarly, the petitioner Nos.6 to 11 have also undergone similar training in pursuance to the order of respondent No.2. The date of appearing in such examination is different so far as petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and petitioner Nos.6 to 11 are concerned. It is pointed out that subsequently, on 1-4-1991, respondent No.2 gave appointment orders to the petitioners and other persons on the post of 'clerk', who were included in the select list of 'clerk' prepared in the year 1987-1988 under the Centralized Recruitment Scheme Rules, 1970. The petitioners were also declared successful in post training examination held on different dates. Thereafter, the petitioners represented to give them regular appointment in the cadre of 'clerk' as they apprehended that on closure of a particular department, in which they were appointed, their services might be terminated. However, it seems that without giving any hearing to the petitioners, respondent No.2 passed an order on 25-5-1992 deleting the names of the petitioners from the select list of 'clerk', which was prepared under the Centralized Recruitment Scheme Rules, 1970 on the ground that names of the petitioners were included in the select list on the vacancies reserved for ex-servicemen, however, the petitioners were wrongly recruited under the 'ex-servicemen' quota, though they were not 'ex-servicemen' as such.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, by which names of the petitioners were deleted from the select list, the petitioners have filed present petition challenging the aforesaid action of the respondents. By filing this petition, it is prayed that aforesaid action of the respondents may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners in the cadre of 'clerk' from 6-2-1990 and to grant all consequential benefits.

(3.) While admitting this matter, learned Single Judge of this Court has granted interim relief as prayed for in the petition. The effect of the interim relief is that the petitioners are still in service and that fact is not in dispute. During the course of hearing, Mr.Oza, learned advocate for the petitioners pointed out that all these petitioners were permitted to appear even in departmental examinations known as SSD Examination, LRQ examination and HRP examination, however, no benefit of promotion was given to the petitioners in view of the fact that they are continued in service by virtue of interim order granted by this Court.