GIRISH JANTILAL VAGHELA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. M. S. Karnik, learned Counsel waives service for respondent No. 1 Mr. Girish Kulkarni, learned Counsel waives services for respondent No. 2. None for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 though served.

(2.) THE short question involved in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that as to whether petitioner falls with a category of "government servant", who was appointed as a Drugs Inspector in Medical and Health Department of respondent--administration, on contract basis, initially for a period for six months and was continued in the said post for over six years.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioner was appointed as a Drug Inspector on 11th March, 1996 after holding an interview by 2nd respondent and finding him qualified for the said post. The petitioner's appointment was on contract basis for a period of six months or till the U. P. S. C. nominee joins the said post. Admittedly, petitioner was continued for over six years, after initial period of six months was over, with artificial brakes (breaks) for a day or two. Respondent No. 3 U. P. S. C. , at the instance of respondent No. 2--Administrator published an advertisement dated 24th March, 2001 to select a candidate for the post of "drugs Inspector" on regular basis. In the advertisement, relaxation of age limit upto five years was provided for the Government servants. On 12. 04. 2001, which was the closing date to apply to 3rd respondent--U. P. S. C. for selection to the said post, the petitioner's age was 32 years. He was over age by 2 years. It is the case of petitioner that in view of relaxation of age limit upto five years, he submitted representation to 2nd respondent on 29th March, 2001 requesting to issue an "age relaxation certificate". Since there was no response from 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed Original Application before Mumbai Bench of C. A. T. on 16th July, 2001 praying for directions to 2nd respondent to issue the age relaxation certificate. The C. A. T. by its order dated 17th July, 2001 disposed of the Original Application filed by the petitioner with direction to 2nd respondent to decide petitioner's representation dated 29th March, 2001. However, no certificate stating that the petitioner is a Government servant was issued to him. In the meanwhile 3rd respondent issued an interview call to the petitioner to attend the interview provided he produces the said certificate. The petitioner, in response to the interview call, sent representation dated 29th September, 2001 to 3rd respondent explaining with instances and quoting decision of the Apex Court that he falls in the category of Government servant. It is the case of petitioner that 3rd respondent was prima facie satisfied and, therefore, allowed him to participate in the interview. However, 3rd respondent insisted for the certificate from 2nd respondent to the effect that petitioner is a Government servant. Once again 2nd respondent refused to give clear cut certificate stating that the petitioner is a Government servant. After 2nd respondent refused to grant certificate the petitioner filed second O. A. No. 56 of 2002 before C. A. T. , which passed interim order to the effect that any appointment made to the said post thereafter would be subject to outcome of the said Original Application. After five months of the interview, 3rd respondent cancelled candidature of petitioner, and recommended the name of 4th respondent for appointment to the said post of Drugs Inspector. However, 2nd respondent made conditional offer of appointment to 4th respondent for the said post stating that his appointment shall be subject to outcome of the Original Application filed by the petitioner before the Mumbai Bench of C. A. T.