C.G. SHARMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16 -8 -1999 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing Special Civil Application No. 11218 of 1994. In fact the learned single Judge by his common order dated 16 -8 -1999 has decided two Special Civil Applications; Special Civil Application No. 11218 of 1994 (reported in C. G. Sharma v. State, 2000 (2) GLR 1031) filed by the present appellant (Shri C. G. Sharma) and Special Civil Application No. 12454 of 1994 filed by Mr. K. H. Bhatt. The present Appeal is by Shri C. G. Sharma, who was petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 11218 of 1994.

(2.) THE appellant herein i.e., original petitioner had joined the services in the High Court of Gujarat in August, 1977 as Junior Clerk. He was promoted as Assistant in the year 1986. The appellant claims that he had a clean service record and there was no adverse remarks in his annual confidential reports while he was on the establishment of the High Court staff. The appellant did his graduation in law after graduating in Commerce. The advertisement was issued by G.P.S.C. for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (J.D.) and J.M.F.C.,and other posts in the Judicial Services, he applied in response to this adveriisemem for the post of Civil Judge (J.D.) and J.M.F.C., appeared in the written test held by G.P.S.C., and thereafter, also appeared in the oral test. He was selected by G.P.S.C. for the said post and accordingly he was given appointment as Civil Judge (J.D.) and J.M.F.C. He took over the charge of the post on 29 -6 -1991 as Civil Judge (J.D.) and J.M.F.C. at Mehsana, which was his first posting. According to the appellant from 29 -6 -1991 onwards he worked at different places as under : -

(3.) THE appellant's case is that initially he was appointed on probation for a period of two years, there was no provision for extension of this probation period and in fact the said period of probation was not extended on expiry of two years and although this period of two years expired on 17 -6 -1993 he was continued in service beyond June, 1993. Thereafter, the order was passed on 22 -9 -1994 and in absence of any extension of the period of probation, he should be deemed to have been confirmed on the post of Civil Judge (J.D.) and J.M.F.C. The appellant's grievance against the termination, as aforesaid, was that the termination order did not indicate any reason, that with the expiry of the two years period of probation, in absence of any provision for extension of the period of probation and in absence of any order of extension of the period of probation, with his continuance even after the period of expiry of two years, he should be deemed to have been confirmed on 17 -6 -1993, that the termination order suffers from the vice of pick and choose and arbitrariness for the reason that inasmuch as in many cases, the officers, who failed to achieve the target of disposal of civil cases as per the norms laid down by the High Court, have been confirmed, but appellant's services were terminated, and thus he was subjected to arbitrariness and discrimination. No inquiry was held prior to his termination, as aforesaid, and the principles of natural justice had been violated and the appellant was made to leave the charge of the post by letter dated 23 -9 -1994. On the aforesaid grounds, the Notification dated 22 -9 -1994 read with the communication dated 23 -9 -1994 sent by the Joint Registrar to the appellant were challenged by him by the petition dated 26 -9 -1994 filed in this Court on 26 -9 -1994, and thereafter. Rule was issued on 23 -2 -1995. An affidavit -in -reply dated Nil 1996 was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 High Court and the petition itself was dismissed on 16 -8 -1999 and the rule was discharged.