ORDER : S.K. Keshote, J. 1. Challenge has been made by the petitioner by this special civil application to the order at Annexure-H dated 1.3.1986 of the Government of Gujarat, Health & Family Welfare Department, under which the Government has declined to condone the break in service of the petitioner for the period from 3rd March, 1977 to 11th January, 1980. 2. Facts of the case, in brief are that the petitioner was taken in employment in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Mechanical Circle, Ahmedabad, as work charged clerk from 9.4.1975. He was relieved on 3rd March, 1977 as an economy measure. Thereafter the petitioner made representations to the Department and the Government, and ultimately he was taken back in service on 11.1.1980. After taking back him in service, the petitioner made representation to the Government and prayer has been made for condonation of break in servicve. Condonation of break in service has been prayed for any on the ground that junior person, namely, Shri M.M. Angola, was retained in service, whereas the petitioner has been relieved. Even if the petitioner had to be relieved, for any economy measure, then the principle of first come last go should have been followed. 3. The petition has been contested by the respondent No. 2 and 3 by filing reply to the special civil application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised four contentions in this case which are as under : (i) That the petitioner was entitled to reckon his service for all purposes from 7.11.1974/9.4.1975 as his services were wrongly put an end on 3.3.1977 by the Superintending Engineer even though as per Department's own decision the petitioner was not junior-most amongst regular work charged karkuns and one Shri M.N. Angola was the junior-most amongst regular work charged karkuns. (ii) That the respondents have failed to give immediate effect to the Government order dated 5.12.1989 by which the Superintending Engineer was directed to immediately absorb the petitioner whose services were wrongly terminated. (iii) That the Government has misinterpreted its own resolution dated 17.12.1973 while rejecting the application for condonation of break in service, and assuming thereby that the case of the petitioner was closed as per para 2 of the said Resolution. (iii) That the Government has misinterpreted its own resolution dated 17.12.1973 while rejecting the application for condonation of break in service, and assuming thereby that the case of the petitioner was closed as per para 2 of the said Resolution. (iv) In view of the admitted position that the petitioner's services were erroneously terminated when his junior Shri Angola was continued in service, the respondents were otherwise required to rectify their mistake keeping in view the Constitutional guarantee contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioner has been given indulgence and he was taken back in service. But the initial appointment itself was temporary appointment with clear stipulation that it is likely to be terminated at any time. It has next been contended that the State Government has not considered it to be a fit case where the break in service has to be condoned. The counsel for the respondents very fairly submitted that even if the reasons given in the order annexure-H not to condone the break in service of the petitioner may not be correct, still the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable in law. The petitioner's claim for condonation of break is solely based on the ground that one person junior to him has been retained in service which is not factually correct. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The State Government, by its policy decision taken on 7.8.1975, decided to remove all work charged clerks on account of economy measure. Accordingly the Superintending Engineer (R&B) decided to remove the employees whose appointments were made after 14.5.1974. These averments have been made by the respondents No. 2 and 3 in para 3 of their reply and the same has not been controverted by the petitioner in his rejoinder. So it is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner were brought to an end under Government policy due to economy measure and the services of these employees have been dispensed with who have been appointed on or after 14.5.1974. The petitioner has not challenged that decision of the Government. So it is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner were brought to an end under Government policy due to economy measure and the services of these employees have been dispensed with who have been appointed on or after 14.5.1974. The petitioner has not challenged that decision of the Government. Though the petitioner has not made any grievance so far as termination of his services is concerned, but his grievance is any that his junior has been retained and as such after taking back in service the break which has occurred in his service has to be condoned. So this court is to decide whether Shri M.N. Angola was junior to the petitioner or not. 7. The petitioner, in this special civil application has claimed himself to be senior on the ground that he was appointed as work charged clerks on 9.4.1975 whereas Shri Angola was appointed on this post on 30th October, 1975, i.e. after his appointment. The petitioners is claiming himself to be senior to Shri Angola in the category of work charged clerk. His whole claim for condonation of break in service is based on his aforesaid assertion. Shri Angola has not been impleaded as party to this special civil application. Not only this the petitioner has also not produced on record of this special civil application any seniority list published by the respondents in which Shri Angola has been shown junior to him. In view of the claim of the petitioner made in this special civil application, Shri Angola was a necessary party to this petition. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, then he will be senior to Angola and this court will be granting seniority to the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to that person. The respondents have come up with the case that Shri Angola was not junior to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner about his seniority has not been accepted by the respondents. The petitioner, without there being any justification, has not impleaded Shri Angola as party to this petition. In view of this position this claim of the petitioners cannot be gone into in absence of Shri Angola. Otherwise it will amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Be that as it may, still this claim of the petitioner does not stand to any merit. In view of this position this claim of the petitioners cannot be gone into in absence of Shri Angola. Otherwise it will amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Be that as it may, still this claim of the petitioner does not stand to any merit. On the other hand from the petitioner's own document at annexure-1 (p. 77) to the rejoinder affidavit Shri Angola had entered in service of the respondents on 21.4.1974 as work charged labour. So entry of Shri Angola in the Department was earlier in point of time than the petitioner, though on the lower post. Shri Angola was then given appointment to the post of work charged clerk on 20th August, 1974 on which post as per the petitioner's own version he was given appointment on 9th April, 1975. So the date of appointment of Shri Angola on the post of work charged clerk was also earlier in point of time than the petitioner. 8. The petitioner wanted to take benefit of one circumstance that Shri Angola remained under reversion, i.e. he was not working on the post of work charged clerk for the period 11.9.1975 to 25.10.1975. The petitioner as well as the respondents have not given any explanation why Shri Angola was reverted to the post of work charged helper for this short period. However, it is a fact that the respondents have taken Shri Angola back on the post of work charged clerk on 30th October, 1975 and the day on which the petitioner entered in service of respondent No. 2 Shri Angola was holding the post of work charged clerk. If we go by the total length of service of Shri Angola as work charged clerk, certainly he is senior to the petitioner. He had entered into service as work charged labour and if we go by the initial appointment then he has longer service in the Department, out of which for some time he might have remained on the lower post. However, total length of service of Shri Angola on the post of work charged clerk is more than that of the petitioner. Shri Angola was taken in service as work charged clerk on 20th August, 1974 when the petitioners had not got (sic) in the Department. However, total length of service of Shri Angola on the post of work charged clerk is more than that of the petitioner. Shri Angola was taken in service as work charged clerk on 20th August, 1974 when the petitioners had not got (sic) in the Department. The petitioner has not challenged the action of the respondents in taking back Shri Angola as work charge clerk on 30th October 1975. 9. The claim of the petitioner that he was senior to Shri Angola, which is the sole basis of his claim for condonation of break in service, does not stand to any merit and substance. When Shri Angola is senior to the petitioner, his claim for condonation of break in service on the ground that he was senior to that person is not acceptable. Hence the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not required to be gone into. The very basis on which the petitioner has based his claim for condonation of break in his service is without any substance, and as such the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner need not be gone into. 10. In the result this special civil application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.