Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 104 (GUJ)

STATE OF GUJARAT v. VIJAYKUMAR RAMSWAROOP GUPTA

2003-02-26

J.N.BHATT, K.A.PUJ

body2003
J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) IN this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 11. 1. 2002 in Special Civil Application No. 7366 of 1990, by invocation of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. ( 2 ) THE respondent, original-petitioner was appointed to the post of Medical Officer, Class-II on ad-hoc basis, however, he continued in the service from 1982 to June 1990, when original-petitioner filed the writ petition for regularisation of his service from the date of appointment with consequential benefits as well as direction to the appellants, original-respondents to consider his case for promotion. Original-petitioner was selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission for the post of Medical Officer, Class-II in 1991 and he was given temporary appointment to the post of Medical Officer, Class-II on probation for a period of 2 years by an order of the Government of Gujarat. Not only that, original-petitioner was also given promotion to the post of Medical Officer, Class-I for a period of one year with effect from 2nd March 2000. The promotion of the petitioner to the said post was also regularised by an order of the State Government dated 16. 9. 2000. ( 3 ) SINCE the original-petitioner was promoted after regularisation in Class-II Medical Officers post, his service period in the feeder cadre, like that post of Medical Officer, Class-II was not regularised by the appellant, as a result of which the original-petitioner had to knock the door of justice for his dues and service regularisation. The contention was raised on behalf of the State of Gujarat that though the service period of the petitioner on the post of Medical Officer, Class-I was regularised and he got promotion from the lower cadre, like that the post of Medical Officer, Class-II, the service period in Class-II post was regularised and therefore the seniority list was prepared by the department. Accordingly, after having considered the factual profile and the rival submissions of the parties and the relevant proposition of rule as well as the case law, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and directed the appellant authority to regularise the services of the petitioner in the post of Medical Officer, Class-II from 17-5-1982, the date on which he joined the service of Medical Officer, Class-II and to give other consequential benefits. The appellants are also directed to regularise the services of the petitioner in the post of Medical Officer, Class-I from 2nd March 2000, the date on which the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer, Class-I post. In short, the directions are issued in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge to the appellant authority to regularise the service of the petitioner as permanent employee from March 2000 in the cadre of and on the post of Medical Officer, Class-I and the service period on the post of Medical Officer, Class-II with effect from 17. 5. 1982. The original-respondent authorities, being aggrieved, have come up before us in this Letters Patent Appeal. ( 4 ) WE have dispassionately heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have threadbare examined and evaluated the factual profile emerging from the record of the present case. We have also given our anxious thoughts and consideration to the text and texture of the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and the relevant proposition of rules and law, and we find that the views taken by the learned Single Judge and the ultimate conclusion, recorded in the impugned judgement, could not be assailed. Nothing has been successfully shown or spelt out from the judgment, even remotely, for warranting our interference by exercise of our powers under Section 15 of the Letters Patent. How could there be a defence that the regularisation in feeder cadre from which the promotion is given to the Class-I post after regularisation of Class-I Medical Post period of the original-petitioner respondent herein cannot be granted. How, now it be contended that regularisation during that period (Class-II) was not done regularly or it cannot be done. This is really a very unfortunate and surprising stand and attitude of the Government. A person who is confirmed and thereafter given permanent appointment in higher post and that too after regularisation of the service period in Class-I post be denied regularisation of service in lower feeder cadre with effect from 17-5-1982 till the date of promotion in the higher cadre? In our opinion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is quite weighty and justified, requiring no interference. Therefore, the Appeal shall stand dismissed. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the Civil Application No. 8692 of 2002 shall stand rejected. .