HARISHKUMAR NARHARILAL VAIDYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has, in effect, re -agitated the issue of termination of his service as a judicial officer after his first petition being withdrawn with a view to making a representation for reconsideration of the impugned order by the High Court and after such representation being rejected by the order dated 05.09.2006.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on 24.7.1996 as an ad -hoc Judge of Labour Court for a period of one year by the State Government after interview before the selection committee. He continued to work as such till 16.10.1999 with a break of 13 days between 25.01.1998 to 06.02.1998, which break was regularized. When the Gujarat State Public Service Commission (GPSC) issued advertisement on 02.03.1998 to invite applications for the post of Judge, Labour Court, the petitioner responded to that and he was selected by the GPSC and appointed as Labour Judge in consultation with the High Court by notification dated 12.10.1999. Thereafter, he continued to serve at the places of his posting without any adverse remarks till his probation was terminated by notification dated 08.08.2002. He challenged that termination by the first petition, being SCA No.10564 of 2002, but he withdrew it on 08.12.2004 with a view to making a representation.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that his first petition was duly admitted and, at the stage of final hearing, it was felt by the Division Bench that the facts and contentions canvassed by the petitioner could be placed before the High Court in the form of a representation by the petitioner and, therefore, he was permitted to withdraw the petition expressly recording the hope that the High Court would consider such representation on its own merits and take a decision thereon in accordance with law. It was submitted for the petitioner that the detailed representation dated 25.01.2005, annexed with several relevant documents, was, however, not decided till July, 2007 and, therefore, he had written a letter dated 14.07.2005 requesting to decide it as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the decision was taken and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 05.9.2006 which did not disclose any reasons as to why the contentions contained in the representation did not find favour with the High Court.