BHARTIBEN NANUBHAI BALSARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Has a person appointed to a post without following the recruitment Rules prescribed for appointment or de hors the recruitment Rules for appointment a right to hold the post ? Can such an appointee prevent the selected candidate in accordance with Rules from being appointed to the post ? Has the regularly selected candidate appointed to the post right to continue in post vice the irregularly appointed person in case of retrenchment ? These are the moot questions for consideration in this group of writ petitions filed by rival contenders under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The main contenders in this group of writ petitions are the clerks clerks-cum-typists and typists who are appointed irregularly and de hors the provisions or the Rules by the Mamlatdar Deputy Collector Treasury Officer and certain other officers temporarily for the period of 29 days as the selected candidates under the Rules were not available. The other group of the petitioners are the candidates who are selected under the Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerks Clerk-cum -Typist and Typist (Direct Recruitment Procedure) Rules 1970 and appointed as per provisions of the Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerk and Clerk-typists Recruitment Rules 1970 The candidates who are appointed without following recruitment Rules as clerks will be referred for the purpose of convenience as the irregularly appointed clerks while the clerks who are appointed as per the selection list prepared under the recruitment Rules will be referred as the regularly appointed clerks.

(3.) Petitioner Bhartiben Nanubhai Balsara of Special Civil Application No. 4932 of 1986 an irregularly appointed clerk was initially appointed as a clerk in the Treasury by District Treasury Officer temporarily for a period of 29 days or till selected candidates may be available whichever earlier on 31/03/1973 as selected candidates were not available and was subsequently appointed on same terms and conditions by various orders passed for the period of 29 days at intervals with break of some days upto 29/09/1986 As candidates selected as per recruitment Rules were available for appointment the petitioner was not likely to be appointed after tenure of 29 days was to expire on 29/09/1986 she filed Special Civil Application on 19/09/1986 and the Court by interim relief. directed not to terminate her service and since then she continued in service. ... ... ... ... ... ...