KISHOREBHAI BACHUBHAI VAGHODIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that on 15. 01. 1990, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon (Class-IV) in Ayurvedic Dispensary by District Ayurvedic Officer. The pertinent aspect is that, the names were called from the employment exchange and interviews were held and the petitioner was selected for the post on regular basis. It appears that thereafter, there was some internal correspondence between the department, viz. the District Panchayat, Ayurvedic Branch and the Director of Indian Ayurvedic and Homeopathic System and as a result thereof, the appropriate orders were to be passed by the competent authority. But instead of that, the petitioner came to be relieved from service on 31. 01. 1990 read with order dated 06. 02. 1990. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said decision of termination, had preferred Special Civil Application No. 2331/94 before this Court. This Court (Coram: M. S. Parikh, J), vide order dated 17. 12. 1994 observed that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and it is a matter between the two authorities and therefore, the petitioner was relegated to make representation and the authorities were directed to consider the same with the recommendation that since the petitioner is nowhere at fault and the appointment of the petitioner is otherwise regular, the representation shall be considered sympathetically. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner made representation and he was dragged from pillar to post and no orders were passed for reinstatement. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to prefer the present petition one again before this Court.

(2.) THIS Court (Coram : R. K. Abhichandani, J.) on 14. 03. 1996, had passed the following order: s Rule. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the question of interim relief. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon by order dated 15. 1. 1990 passed by the District Ayurvedic Officer in the ayurvedic Dispensary at Adwal. The said dispensary was originally under the State Government and District ayurvedic Officer could have at that time issued orders of appointment of Peon. However, the dispensary appears to have been transferred to the District Panchayat as per the policy from 1. 4. 1989. Since the order is made on 15. 1. 1990 when only the District Panchayat could have made such appointment, problem arose for the petitioner whose services came to be terminated on 6. 2. 1990 on the ground that the appointment was not issued by the competent authority. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application no. 2231 of 1994 in which my learned brother Mr. Justice m. S. Parikh made an order on December 17, 1994 by which the concerned authority was required to decide the representation to be made by the petitioner within two weeks of that order. It appears that the District panchayat had addressed a letter on 19. 11. 1992 to the director, Indian Medical Homeopathy at Gandhinagar recommending correction of the administrative mistake for which the petitioner was not responsible. On 23. 12. 1994 the petitioner made a representation, a copy of which is at Annexure "e", to the Development Commissioner who was supposed to decide the matter. The Development commissioner however, has not taken any decision uptill now. It is therefore, directed by way of interim relief that the respondents the State of Gujarat and the development Commissioner will take an appropriate decision as regards the appointment of the petitioner as peon in light of the recommendations made by the District panchayat and in context of his representation dated 23. 12. 1994, a copy of which is at Annexure "e" to the petition, within one week from the date of the service of this order and place the same on the record of this petition. Direct service is permitted.

(3.) THEREFORE, by virtue of the aforesaid order, the respondents were directed to take appropriate decision as regards the appointment of the petitioner as Peon in light of the recommendation made by the District Panchayat and in the context of the representation dated 23. 12. 1994, copy whereof is produced at Annexure-E to the petition.