NAGINBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner who was appointed as a Notified Inspector of Factories, has challenged the order dated 17.11.1984 (Annexure-G), passed by the State Government terminating the petitioner's services.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed by order dated 20.4.1982 (Annexure-B) as a Notified Inspector of Factories in Class II service of the State Government on temporary and ad hoc basis pursuant to which the petitioner joined the service on 4.5.1982. Thereafter by order dated 8.9.1983 (Annexure-D) the petitioner was appointed as a Notified Inspector of Factories on probation for a period of two years from the date on which the petitioner had taken over as Notified Inspector of Factories. By a Resolution dated 4.5.1984 (Annexure-F) the probation period was extended for a period of six months i.e. till 3.11.1984. By the impugned Resolution dated 17.11.1984 (Annexure-G) the petitoner's services came to be terminated. It is the aforesaid order which is under challenge in the present petition. On behalf of the respondents affidavit-in-reply is filed by Deputy Secretary to the Government in Labour & Employment Department.

(3.) Mr S.B.Vakil, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that under the Inspector of Notified Factories (Recruitment) Rules, 1973, (for short "the Rules) as contained in the Government Notification dated 1.3.1974 (Annexure-A) the relevant Rule empowers the Government to appoint an officer on probation and to continue him on probation for a maximum period of two years only. Hence, after expiry of two years' period on 3.5.1984 the petitioner must be deemed to have been confirmed in service. Therefore, the petitioner's services could not have been terminated by treating him as a mere probationer. In the alternative, the learned counsel submitted that even if the Government had the power to extend the period of probation, then also the extended period of probation came to an end on 3.11.1984 and therefore the petitioner became a confirmed employee from 4.11.1984. Hence, at the time of terminating the petitioner's services on 17.11.1984 the petitioner could not have been treated to be a mere probationer. It is submitted that the order terminating the petitioner's services without holding an inquiry under Article 311(2) must, therefore, be declared as illegal and the petitioner be reinstated with full backwages. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1968 SC 1210, (1999) 4 SCC 184 and (1999) 3 SCC 60.