Y M UJJAINWALA Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PANCHMAHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter was called out tor hearing in the first round, then in the second round and lastly, in the third round but none put appearance for the petitioners. Perused the Special Civil Application, reply to the same, rejoinder to the reply and heard the learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Prayer has been made by the petitioners in this Special Civil Application for declaration of the artificial breaks given in the service of the petitioners to be illegal and arbitrary and for direction to the respondents to consider them in continuous service from the date of their initial appointments.

(3.) From the Special Civil Application, I find that the petitioners have been given the appointments as workcharged Clerks only for 29 days from time to time and ultimately in later point of time because of non-availability of the work, they continued in the service as daily wagers. This is clearly borne out from Annexure "B" which has been filed on the record of this Special Civil Application. It is true that the petitioners were working since 1-7-1982 with break in service but this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that for all the time they were given the temporary fixed term fresh appointment. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Bhanmati Tapubhai Muliya v. state of Gujarat, reported in 1995 (2) GLH 228 : [1996(1) GLR 54], such appointments come to an end automatically on the expiry of the period, for which no order of termination is required to be made. Such appointments does not confer any right to the petitioners to hold the post. Otherwise also, I do not find anything on record of this Special Civil Application that the appointments have been given to the petitioners after following the procedure as laid down for regular recruitment.