JUDGMENT VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI 1. We have heard Mr. H.S. Munshaw learned advocate for the appellants. Mr. M.J. Mehta learned advocate had appeared for respondent in Civil Application for condonation of delay but he has not filed his vakalatnama and he was on caveat, and therefore, his name is shown. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6463 of 2004, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. 3. We propose to decide this appeal at the admission stage itself, therefore, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, this appeal is taken up for hearing final disposal. 4. The facts of the case is that the respondent was appointed as compounder on 19.4.1988 after following interview procedure in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. The appointment order dated 19.4.1988 contains conditions out of which condition no. 5 provides for passing examination to be taken by the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee for the purpose of continuing in service. In the said order, there was no condition of production of certificate of Gujarat State Pharmacy Council. It is the case of the respondent that in the year 1988-89, though advertisement for regular selection for compounder was issued, however, since he was residing in the Rural Area, he had no knowledge of such advertisement and therefore, could not apply for selection. Thereafter, in the year 1989-90, 1990-91,1992-93, 1995-96, 1997-98, advertisements for such purpose were issued, but the same were for people belonging to Adivasi, Harijan and physically handicapped category and it was not for general category candidates and therefore, he could not apply. The petitioner has further averred that in 2003-3004, an advertisement was issued for general category candidates for the pose of Junior Pharmacist and the respondent applied for the said post on 17.6.2003. The writ petition was amended and the respondent has further stated that the Rules were amended in the year 1998 for the post of compounder and he thereafter applied on 23.11.1998 for registration in Gujarat State Pharmacy Council. The respondent was then given registration certificate by Gujarat State Pharmacy Council on 31.12.2003. The respondent was not qualified for the post of compounder. The respondent was then given registration certificate by Gujarat State Pharmacy Council on 31.12.2003. The respondent was not qualified for the post of compounder. The respondent has further averred that the respondent had completed 16 years of service and he was not at fault for not passing examination as per the condition no. 5 of the appointment order. It is specific case of the respondent that the services of the respondents were terminated without affording any opportunity of hearing to the respondent. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed on 19.4.1988 after following interview procedure and he was having the requisite qualification as per the Rules prevailing in the year 1988 and was having qualification which was acceptable in the State of Gujarat. Subsequently, when the Rules were amended in the year 1998, he has also obtained registration under the Gujarat Rules and has also passed the examination in the year 2004 as he was permitted to appear in the examination in view of the interim order passed by this Court and he was declared successful and the appellants have regularised his services, but they were not granting him the benefits of continuity of service from 1988 to 2003. This was considered by the learned Single Judge in para-12 to 23 of the impugned judgment. 6. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the respondent was allowed to serve the appellants for a period of 16 years initially and they did not appoint any regularly selected candidates on the post of respondent and now they cannot deny the benefit of past services to present respondent. The learned Single Judge has taken a correct view on law and facts and has granted continuity in service to the respondent as well as directed to pay him all consequential benefits of service and arrears of pay. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge and the same requires to be confirmed. 7. In the result, this letters Patent Appeal is dismissed summarily. The impugned judgment and order dated 22.10.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6463 of 2004 is confirmed. 8. As the main appeal is dismissed, Civil Application No. 3164/2014 is also dismissed.