PRAVINSINH DOLATSINH RANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Multi-purpose Health Worker by an order dated 5-12-1988, Annexure-A filed along with the Special Civil Application wherein his name appears at Sr. No. 5. He was to appear before the Selection Committee for regular appointment later on. The petitioner's case is that through an advertisement dated 7/12/1990. the candidates who were working as Multi-purpose Health Workers like the petitioner were required to appeal- before the Selection Committee on or before 15/01/1991; however, he being posted at Village Itkhala, a remote village, could not come to know about this advertisement and no departmental communication was sent to him for appearing before the Selection Committee on or before 15/01/1991 and, therefore, he could not appear before the Selection Committee. In these circumstances, an order Annexure-E dated 6/01/1992 was passed whereby his services were terminated on the ground that he did not comply with condition No. 5 of his appointment order to get through the process of selection. On 20/01/1992, the petitioner preferred the present Special Civil Application before this Court against the order dated 6/01/1992 and also sought a direction from this Court that. in the facts and circumstances of this case, he may be given one more chance to appear before the Selection Committee. On 24/01/1992, the notice was issued by this Court and later on the petitioner sought an amendment in this petition through the proposed amendment dated 14/09/1992 seeking to place on record a Government Circular dated 20/03/1992 and to insert para 8A in the petition so as to take the ground that in terms of this Government Circular dated 20/03/1992, his appointment be regularised as has been done in some other cases. This amendment was allowed by the Court and the same was also carried out. Thereafter, an affidavit- in-reply dated 17/02/1993 had been filed under the signatures of the Under Secretary, Panchayats and Rural Housing Department, State of Gujarat. On 2 5/02/1993, after hearing both the sides and after taking into consideration the reply which had been filed. Rule was issued by this Court and the following order was passed :

(2.) During the pendency of this Special Civil Application, an advertisement was issued about the meeting of the Selection Committee and it has been submitted that at that time the petitioner preferred a Civil Application before this Court seeking a direction against the respondents to allow him to appear before the Selection Committee and this Civil Application No. 4664 of 1996 was decided on 24/06/1996 and thereafter the petitioner was called for interview before the Selection Committee. This fact has been incorporated by the petitioner in Civil Application No. 1380 of 1998 wherein the petitioner has further stated that the petitioner had appeared before the Selection Committee after, the decision of Civil Application No. 4664 of 1996 as he had been called for interview and he was informed by letter dated 18th/ 20/09/1996 by respondent No. 2 that he had been selected and placed at Sr. No. 3 in the select list. This order dated 18th/ 20/09/1996 has been placed on record as Annexure-A along with Civil Application No. 1380 of 1998. The petitioner has raised a grievance that though he had cleared the requisite selection and had been placed at Sr. No. 3 in the select list, he was informed by letter dated 8/10/1996 (Annexure-C with Civil Application No. 1380 of 1998) by respondent No. 4 that even though he had been placed at Sr. No. 3 in the select list, he could not be given appointment on the ground that, according to the Recruitment Rules, he had become age-barred. The petitioner has further submitted that, on 4/10/1996, an order had been issued by respondent No. 4 appointing other candidates, who had been selected along with the petitioner. This order dated 4/10/1996 has been placed on record at Annexure-D with Civil Application No. 1380 of 1998. The petitioner has further stated in this Civil Application No. 1380 of 1998 that he was within the age limits at the time when he was appointed and he had appeared before the Selection Committee in terms of the order of this Court which has passed after hearing both the sides and yet he has been deprived of his appointment on the ground of age. The copy of this Civil Application No. 1380 of 1998 had been made available to the respondents on 10/02/1998 itself as per the endorsement on this Civil Application. However, so far, no reply whatsoever has been filed to the averments made in this Civil Application by any of the respondents.

(3.) Learned Counsel for both the sides were heard. So far as the order dated 6/01/1992 against which the Special Civil Application had been filed cannot be interfered with for the simple reason that, admittedly, the petitioner had not appeared before the Selection Committee in December 19/01/1991 for the reasons good, bad or worse including the reason that he did not come to know about this advertisement. The order dated 6/01/1992, therefore, cannot be set aside. However, the matter does not end here. The petitioner's further prayer was that he may be given one more chance to appear before the Selection Committee because being posted in a remote area, he could not come to know of the dates of selection earlier. In this background, while issuing Rule on 25/02/1993, the Court had passed an order protecting the petitioner's prospects and this order dated 2 5/02/1993 was passed by the Court after hearing both the sides. Now. it is the admitted position that the petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee in 1996 under the orders of this Court; it is also not in dispute that he has been selected and had been placed at Sr. No. 3 in the select list in 1996: it is also not in dispute that at the time of his initial appointment in 1988 and at me time when he filed the petition before this Court, he was within the age limits: it is also clear from the order Annexure D with Civil Application No. 1380 of 1998 that as many as eight candidates were appointed by this order dated 4/10/1996 on the basis of the same selection in which the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 3. It is. therefore, obvious that while the candidates who were even at a lower position than the petitioner in,the same select list have been appointed in 1996 while the petitioner has been denied the appointment on the ground that he had become overage by this time. The facts as aforesaid are so eloquent to consider that the petitioner has not been treated fairly inasmuch as he could not be deprived of the fruits of the selection at which he was selected and in which he had appeared during the pendency of this Special Civil Application in terms of the order passed by the Court after hearing both the sides. If the candidates at lower position than the petitioner have been appointed, the petitioner could not have been deprived on the ground that while the petition was pending before this Court, he has become overage. Once, the petitioner is given a further chance to appear in the selection in terms of this Court's order dated 25-2-1993 with the expectation that next selection will be held in 1993- 94, merely because selections were held in 1996. he cannot he denied the benefit of the selection on the ground that he had now become overage. Aging is a process which no one can stop. The petitioner has done all that was in his control. He had also approached the Court well in time. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner certainly deserves to be considered for appointment on the basis of his being placed at Sr. No. 3 in the select list in the year 1996 and his name ought to have been included in the order at Annexure-B dated 4/10/1996 at appropriate place on the basis of his selection.