MOHANBHAI JIVAJI ASARI Vs. DIRECTOR PERAPLEGIA HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Civil Application is directed against the order dated 25-11-94 passed by the Director, Paraplegia Hospital, Ahmedabad terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of leather worker on the grounds that the Director, Medical Education and Research, State of Gujarat has not accorded sanction to the petitioner's appointment as leather worker.

(2.) The petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe. The post of leather worker was advertised for ad hoc appointment in the year 1991 and in response to this notice inviting applications through advertisement the petitioner applied. The petitioner faced the selection and on the basis of the selection held for the purpose, the appointment was given to him after interview on the post of leather worker on 30-12-91 on the conditions mentioned therein. One of the conditions mentioned in the appointment order was that it was subject to sanction by the Director, Health and Medical Services and Medical Education, the State of Gujarat and appointment was for a period of one year in the first instance. This appointment, given to the petitioner in December 1991, was extended from time to time by different orders and the last order was issued on 30-6-94 extending the period of appointment upto 31-12-94. While the petitioner was so continuing on the post of leather worker since December, 1991, an order was passed on 25-11-94 by the Director, Paraplegia Hospital, Ahmedabad terminating his services on the ground that his appointment had not been sanctioned by the Director, Medical Education and Research as per the above authority's letter dated 24-11-94 mentioned at item No. 1 of the Reference in the impugned order dated 25-11-94. This order dated 25-11-94 has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.

(3.) In the affidavit-in-reply dated 8-8-95, which has been filed on behalf of the respondents, the fact with regard to the petitioner's appointment in December, 1991 and that he was continued by various orders and that lastly the order dated 30-6-94 was passed extending his services upto 31-12-94 has not been disputed, but it has been stated that the petitioner's services had to be terminated because the appointment had been made contrary to the Rules and Regulations and without approval. The termination order has been passed in accordance with the terms of appointment.