Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1717 (GUJ)

J. N. Jagani v. State of Gujarat

2016-08-10

ABHILASHA KUMARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to regularize their services and treat them at par with similarly situated persons in Rajkot and Sabarkantha District Panchayats, from the dates of their initial appointments as Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male), with all consequential and incidental benefits. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that an advertisement was issued in 1988-89 and 1989-90 by respondent No. 3 District Development Officer, Junagadh, inviting applications for the post of Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) ["MPHW(M)" for short]. It was stated in the said advertisement that meritorious candidates would be given training during the training period and every candidate would be paid Rs. 125/- as stipend. It was further provided that after the completion of the training, the Selection Committee would select the candidates and the selected candidates would be appointed on ad hoc basis in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-20-1150-EB-25-1500 as MPHW(M). It was further stated in the said advertisement that the selected candidates would have to discharge their duties as MPHW(M) for two years and for that they would have to submit a bond of Rs. 3,000/-. The petitioners herein had all applied pursuant to the said advertisement for the post in question. After considering the applications, respondent No. 3 issued call-letters to the petitioners, to remain present with their documents, for the interview. Accordingly, the petitioners remained personally present before the Selection Committee consisting of the President of the District Panchayat and Chief District Health Officer. After scrutinizing the original documents of the petitioners, an oral interview was taken by the Selection Committee. A select-list was prepared and the petitioners were issued call-letters and instructed to join the training programme and to furnish bonds of Rs. 3,000/-. As per the said instructions, all the petitioners furnished the bonds and joined their training at their respective places of their posting in the District. After the successful completion of their training, the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis as MPHW(M). The petitioners were appointed during the year 1990-92 and have been continued in service till date. As such, all the petitioners have put in about twenty-five years of service, uninterruptedly. After the successful completion of their training, the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis as MPHW(M). The petitioners were appointed during the year 1990-92 and have been continued in service till date. As such, all the petitioners have put in about twenty-five years of service, uninterruptedly. It is not disputed that the petitioners are receiving benefits such as LTC, Leave, Leave Encashment, Travelling Allowance, D.A., Permanent Travelling Allowance, HRA, Medical Allowance, Mediclaim, etc. They are also getting the benefits of the Sixth Pay Commission and have their GPF accounts. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are not getting the higher pay-scale as their services have not been regularized, till date. 4. The specific case of the petitioners is that, in the appointment letters issued to them, Condition No. 10 has been included, which stipulates that the petitioners would have to participate in the regular selection process for the post of MPHW(M) as and when such selection process is held. On the dates of their appointments, the petitioners were aged between seventeen to twenty-two years as per the eligibility criteria in the advertisement. However, no selection took place for a period of about six years. For the first time after their ad hoc appointments, an advertisement for the selection process of MPHW(M) was published by the District Panchayat, Junagadh, on 30.03.1996. The petitioners participated in the said selection process. However, some of the petitioners were declared to have 'failed' as they had exceeded the permissible age-limit of twenty-five years. Other petitioners were not allowed to participate, for the same reason. 5. It is further the case of the petitioners that the State Government has issued a Government Resolution dated 02.05.1991, whereby, it is resolved to regularize the services of ad hoc employees such as the petitioners. In spite of repeated representations to respondent No. 3 to regularize their services in light of the above Government Resolution, nothing fruitful has been done so far. Respondent No. 3 has forwarded several proposals to respondent No. 1 State Government but no reply has been received. 6. The petitioners further contend that similarly situated MPHW(M) who were not permitted to participate in the selection process on the ground of being over-age have been granted the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.1991, by the Rajkot District Panchayat. Respondent No. 3 has forwarded several proposals to respondent No. 1 State Government but no reply has been received. 6. The petitioners further contend that similarly situated MPHW(M) who were not permitted to participate in the selection process on the ground of being over-age have been granted the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.1991, by the Rajkot District Panchayat. The State Government, itself, has regularized the services of MPHW(M) in District Sabarkantha, with retrospective effect. The petitioners are, therefore, deserving of similar treatment. As nothing concrete has been done by the respondents in this regard, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. Mr. S.I. Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Mehta, learned advocate, has appeared for the petitioners and has made the following submissions: 8. The petitioners have all been appointed against sanctioned and vacant posts by a selection process undertaken pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.07.1990. Though the appointments of the petitioners were initially made on ad hoc basis, however, Condition No. 10 in their appointment orders clearly stipulates that the petitioners would be required to participate in the regular selection process, as and when it is initiated. Accordingly, the petitioners have participated in the selection process that was undertaken by respondent No. 3 on 30.03.1996. It is submitted that it is not the fault of the petitioners that no selection process was undertaken by respondent No. 3 from the year 1991 upto 1996. During this period, the petitioners have crossed the permissible age-limit, therefore, they are being deprived of the fruits of regularization that would have been granted to them had the selection process been undertaken earlier, as it should have been. 9. It is further submitted that the petitioners possess the required eligibility criteria, though some of the petitioners were declared as 'failed' by respondent No. 3 in the recruitment process that took place on 30.03.1996, only on the basis of the age-limit. Some of the petitioners were not even permitted to participate, on the very same ground. 10. It is further submitted that similarly situated MPHW(M) in District Rajkot have been regularized by the Rajkot District Panchayat. The State Government has passed an order dated 13.10.2009, regularizing the services of MPHW(M) in Sabarkantha District, with retrospective effect. The petitioners are identically situated and the same benefit ought to be granted to them. 11. 10. It is further submitted that similarly situated MPHW(M) in District Rajkot have been regularized by the Rajkot District Panchayat. The State Government has passed an order dated 13.10.2009, regularizing the services of MPHW(M) in Sabarkantha District, with retrospective effect. The petitioners are identically situated and the same benefit ought to be granted to them. 11. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka And Others v. Umadevi And Others, (2006)4 SCC 1 , and has submitted that the case of the petitioners falls squarely within the ratio of the said judgment as their appointments cannot be considered to be illegal but may be said to be irregular. However, the irregularity of their appointments is on account of the fact that the selection process was not undertaken in time, which factor is not in the control of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners have put in about twenty-five years of service, by now. The interim order in their favour was passed on 11.05.2011. Even before that date, the petitioners had completed approximately twenty years of service, therefore, the ratio laid down in the case Secretary, State of Karnataka And Others v. Umadevi (3) And Others (supra) would be applicable to them and they ought to be considered for the regularization of their services. 12. Another judgment relied upon by learned Senior Counsel is that in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey And Others, (2007)11 SCC 92 . In that case, the Supreme Court has discussed the judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978)1 SCC 248 and the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka And Others v. Umadevi (3) And Others (supra), and held that no doubt, Maneka Gandhi case does not specifically deal with the regularization of Government employees but the principle of reasonableness in executive action and the law laid down therein would be of general importance. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners, especially as the services of other similarly situated employees have been regularized, is unreasonable and unjust. 13. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners, especially as the services of other similarly situated employees have been regularized, is unreasonable and unjust. 13. The last judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioners is in the case of Pravinsinh Dolatsinh Rana v. State of Gujarat And Ors., 1999(2) GLR 1640 , wherein this Court had directed the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner therein for appointment, though he had become age-barred. 14. Mr. Niraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4, has submitted the State Government received a number of representations from the Gujarat Rajya Panchayat Karmachari Mahamandal demanding the regularization of the services of MPHW(M). Pursuant thereto, the State Government passed the Government Resolution dated 02.05.1991, resolving that such irregular appointments should be regularized on the condition that the concerned District Panchayat ought not to have made ad hoc appointments in the last six months. It is submitted that in this view of the matter, the State Government has already taken a decision and it was for the concerned District Panchayat to have acted on the said Government Resolution. 15. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn the attention of the Court to Paragraph-7 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 4 Commissioner, Health, Medical and Medical Education, wherein it is stated that the appointments of the petitioners have been made by the District Panchayat, Junagadh and the benefits of regularization, sanction of higher pay-scale, etc. have to be accorded by the said District Panchayat only. 16. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that in the case of Multi Purpose Health Workers (Female), the Division Bench of this Court has passed a judgment dated 20.07.1990 in the case of Surekhaben Chamarbhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and others - Letters Patent Appeal No. 85 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 8611 of 2009 and cognate matters, wherein it is held that the appointments of the appellants therein were made without following the prescribed procedure and therefore, such irregular appointments cannot be directed to be regularized. It is submitted that in the present case as well, the appointments of the petitioners are not regular appointments, therefore, in view of the above judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioners cannot be regularized. 17. Mr. It is submitted that in the present case as well, the appointments of the petitioners are not regular appointments, therefore, in view of the above judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioners cannot be regularized. 17. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent No. 3 has submitted, upon instructions, that the District Panchayat, Junagadh, has sent several proposals to the State Government for the regularization of the services of the petitioners on 24.09.1997, 11.12.2000, 25.09.2001, 18.12.2001 and 05.06.2006. Adverting to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 3, he has further submitted that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis, subject to certain conditions imposed in the appointment orders. As the petitioners are not permanent employees, consequential benefits such as regularization cannot be granted to them without undergoing the regular selection process. According to Mr. Munshaw, the petitioners have no right to claim such relief and permanent employment in the services of the District Panchayat, Junagadh. 18. Mr. S.I. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted in rejoinder that, the judgment of the Division Bench dated 20.07.1990, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 85 of 2010, which is being relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned counsel for respondent No. 3, would not have any application in the present case, as the case of the appellants before the Division Bench is factually different from that of the present petitioners. There are significant differences in both cases which would go to the root of the matter. One such difference is that the period of appointment of Multi Purpose Health Workers (Female), who were appellants before the Division Bench, was only for a fixed term of eleven months, whereas, in the present case, no such fixed period of appointment has been given to the petitioners who have continued to work from the dates of their initial appointments upto date and have, by now, completed over twenty-five years of service. It is further submitted that the appellants before the Division Bench had challenged the Government Resolution dated 01.10.2007, to the extent that it provided for appointments to be made on contractual basis for eleven months. In the present case, no such Government Resolution is in question as this Government Resolution had not even been issued when the petitioners were appointed and has never been applied in their cases. In the present case, no such Government Resolution is in question as this Government Resolution had not even been issued when the petitioners were appointed and has never been applied in their cases. Distinguishing the said judgment further, learned Senior Counsel submits that the appellants before the Division Bench were given breaks after the completion of eleven months and before being re-engaged on contractual basis, whereas the present petitioners have never been given any breaks in service. Hence, the case of Multi Purpose Health Workers (Female) is different from the case of the petitioners herein and the judgment of the Division Bench, having been rendered on the facts of that case, cannot be made applicable to the present case. 19. On 08.08.2016, this Court had requested Mr. Niraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, to take instructions regarding whether the State Government would be open to considering the aspect of taking a policy decision regarding the regularization of the services of the petitioners, as has been done in the case of similarly situated persons in Sabarkantha District. Today, when the petition is taken up, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the State Government has addressed a communication dated 25.05.2016 to the District Panchayat, Junagadh, asking for certain details. On a perusal of the said communication, it appears that certain details such as name, educational qualifications, date of birth, date of appointment, and whether MPHW(M) in Junagadh District have passed the examination, and if so, when, have been sought. However, this communication does not address the query of the Court. It, therefore, appears that the petition would have to be adjudicated on merits, on the basis of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. 20. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioners have been appointed as MPHW(M) on ad hoc basis vide various appointment orders of different dates, of the years 1990-91. One such appointment order dated 29.01.1990, has been annexed as Annexure-C to the petition. The appointment orders of all the petitioners are identical and contain the same terms and conditions. Condition No. 10 in the appointment orders states that the candidate would have to participate in the selection process undertaken by the duly constituted Selection Committee as and when such selection is advertised. It was, therefore incumbent upon the petitioners to participate in the regular selection process. Condition No. 10 in the appointment orders states that the candidate would have to participate in the selection process undertaken by the duly constituted Selection Committee as and when such selection is advertised. It was, therefore incumbent upon the petitioners to participate in the regular selection process. It is relevant to note that in the advertisement dated 20.07.1990, pursuant to which the petitioners were appointed, the permissible age-limit has been advertised as seventeen to twenty-two years. In the advertisement dated 30.03.1996 for the regular selection process, the maximum age-limit is twenty-five years. There is no dispute regarding the fact that no selection process by the duly appointed Selection Committee took place upto 30.03.1996. The selection process was to be initiated by the District Panchayat. When the said process was initiated and an advertisement was issued in this regard, the petitioners herein participated as per Condition No. 10 in their appointment orders. It may be noticed that the upper-age limit in the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioners were appointed was twenty-two years. By the time the selection process was initiated on 30.03.1996, the petitioners had crossed the permissible age-limit of twenty-five years that had been advertised for the regular selection process in which they were required to participate. It stood to reason and would have been logical, had the District Panchayat held the regular selection process keeping in mind the upper-age limit as per the earlier advertisement. However, it did not do so and took its own sweet time, which has resulted in the petitioners being barred from the selection process on the ground of exceeding the permissible age-limit of twenty-five years. The Court is informed, upon instructions by Mr. Saurabh Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners, that petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 had participated in the selection process but were declared as 'failed' on the ground of being over-age, whereas the other petitioners were not even permitted to participate in the selection process as they had also exceeded the permissible age-limit. 21. It is clear from the initial appointment orders that were issued to the petitioners that the respondent District Panchayat intended that the petitioners would undergo the regular selection process and be regularly appointed against the sanctioned and vacant posts against which they had been appointed. This aspect becomes clear from Condition No. 10, itself. 21. It is clear from the initial appointment orders that were issued to the petitioners that the respondent District Panchayat intended that the petitioners would undergo the regular selection process and be regularly appointed against the sanctioned and vacant posts against which they had been appointed. This aspect becomes clear from Condition No. 10, itself. The petitioners cannot be blamed for the fact that respondent No. 3 did not initiate the recruitment process earlier and waited for five to six years upto 1996 to do so, when the petitioners had crossed the permissible age-limit of twenty-five years. 22. In this regard, it would be relevant to advert to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Gohil v. State of Gujarat And Others, (2015)9 SCC 652 , the relevant extract of which is as below: "13. However, by the Circular dated 24.11.2004, the Government of Gujarat modified the earlier resolution taking note of the High Court's order and directed that in cases where for getting higher pay scales a departmental examination is necessary then in such cases it is equally necessary that the departmental examination should be organised in time. Further by Government Order dated 22.06.2006, it was specifically brought to the notice of the Department that if the higher departmental examination is not organised during the eligibility period for getting the higher pay scales then in such case the higher pay scale benefit cannot be stalled on such ground. In the instant case, admittedly, the higher pay scale was ordered to be granted to the appellant after completion of nine years but the same was withdrawn on the basis of earlier Circular of 1994. The High Court has not considered the subsequent Circular of 2004 and based on the Circular of 1994, the order withdrawing the benefit was upheld. The impugned order passed by the High Court on this account cannot be sustained in law." (emphasis supplied) 23. The petitioners cannot, therefore, be deprived of the fruits of the regularization of their services that would have ensued to them had the regular selection process been initiated within time by respondent No. 3. The impugned order passed by the High Court on this account cannot be sustained in law." (emphasis supplied) 23. The petitioners cannot, therefore, be deprived of the fruits of the regularization of their services that would have ensued to them had the regular selection process been initiated within time by respondent No. 3. It is not as though respondent No. 3 was unaware of the fact that the late initiation of the selection process would render the petitioners over-age, as it was the said respondent that had issued the earlier advertisement fixing the upper age-limit at twenty-two years. After about five or six years, the advertisement for the regular selection process was issued on 30.03.1996. It is a case of simple mathematics to know that after the passage of five or six years, a candidate who was twenty-two years of age in the year 1990 or 1991, would obviously have exceeded the age of twenty-five years in the year 1996. The very purpose of appointing the petitioners, therefore stands frustrated by the casual and inconsiderate attitude of respondent No. 3. Consequently, the petitioners have been forced to continue on ad hoc basis without receiving the benefits of regularization and higher pay-scale even after twenty-five years of continuous, uninterrupted service. 24. The State Government has issued a Government Resolution dated 02.05.1991, whereby it has been resolved to regularize the services of MPHW(M) in all Districts, who have been appointed on ad hoc basis, subject to the condition that the concerned District Panchayat has not made ad hoc appointments in the past six months. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that pursuant to the said Government Resolution, it was open to respondent No. 3 to have regularized the services of the petitioners. It is on record that the services of similarly situated MPHW(M) in Rajkot District have been regularized by the concerned District Panchayat, pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 02.05.1991. In the case of MPHW(M) of Sabarkantha District, it is the State Government, itself, that has taken the initiative by the decision dated 13.10.2009, of regularizing the services of MPHW(M) with retrospective effect, subject to the condition that they fulfilled all the eligibility criteria on the initial dates of their appointments. The decision of the State Government dated 13.10.2009, has been placed on record. The decision of the State Government dated 13.10.2009, has been placed on record. No cogent or justifiable reason has been advanced by either respondent No. 3, or the State Government, for not giving similar treatment to the petitioners. Respondent No. 3 is trying to pass the buck to the State Government by stating that it has written several communications to it in this regard, whereas the State Government is returning the buck by stating, in the affidavit-in-reply, that it was for the Junagadh District Panchayat to have taken a decision regarding the regularization of the services of the petitioners, pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 02.05.1991. In both the affidavits-in-reply, there is not a single reason that comes even close to justifying the discriminatory treatment that has been meted out to the petitioners, vis-à-vis similarly situated persons in other Districts. 25. It may be true that in the case of District Rajkot, similarly situated MPHW(M) have been regularized by the concerned District Panchayat. However, it is obvious that in the case of Sabarkantha District Panchayat, the services of MPHW(M), who are identically situated to the petitioners, have been regularized, with retrospective effect, by the State Government, itself. The State Government has taken a policy decision in this regard, confined only to the MPHW(M) of Sabarkantha District. Why all similarly situated MPHW(M) in other Districts of the State have not been covered under a uniform policy, is certainly baffling. Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male), such as the petitioners, who were appointed on ad hoc basis but have been denied the fruits of regular appointment only because the regular selection process was not held until they had crossed the permissible age-limit, form a distinct class of employees. Different categories in a single class cannot be carved out by taking piecemeal decisions benefiting only a section of such employees. This would amount to sub-classification that would not be permissible in law, as there is no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by confining the decision only to MPHW(M) of a particular District. The petitioners are identically situated to other MPHW(M) in Rajkot and Sabarkantha Districts. They, therefore, cannot be accorded discriminatory treatment. The respondent authorities are not only trying to take advantage of the situation but are also trying to put the blame on each other which cannot be permitted, to the detriment of the petitioners. 26. The petitioners are identically situated to other MPHW(M) in Rajkot and Sabarkantha Districts. They, therefore, cannot be accorded discriminatory treatment. The respondent authorities are not only trying to take advantage of the situation but are also trying to put the blame on each other which cannot be permitted, to the detriment of the petitioners. 26. It is a settled position of law, that does not require any further elaboration, that equals are required to be treated equally and dissimilar treatment cannot be accorded to the same class of people. 27. The action of the respondent authorities in not regularizing the services of the petitioners, as has been done in the case of other similarly situated MPHW(M) by the concerned District Panchayats and the State Government in Sabarkantha District, is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory and unjust and is, therefore, in violation of Article 14of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are being deprived of the fruits of regularization in spite of having worked continuously for a period of about twenty-five years, or more. As such, the action of the respondents is also in violation of the provision of Articles 16 and 21of the Constitution of India. 28. The reliance of the respondents on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Multi Purpose Health Workers (Female) is also misplaced. In that case, the appellants before the Division Bench had been appointed for a fixed term of eleven months, on contractual basis and were given breaks after every period of eleven months before being re-engaged. The challenge in that petition was also to the Government Resolution dated 01.10.2007, to the extent that it provided for appointment on contractual basis. In the present case, the appointments of the petitioners are not contractual in nature and the above-mentioned Government Resolution has never been applied to them. In fact, it did not even exist when the petitioners were appointed in the year 1990-91. The conclusion of the Division Bench that the appellants in that case were irregularly appointed and, therefore, could not claim to be regularized, is based upon the factual scenario prevailing in that case, which has no parallel to the present case. 29. In Secretary, State of Karnataka And Others v. Umadevi (3) And Others (supra), the Supreme Court has held as below: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. 29. In Secretary, State of Karnataka And Others v. Umadevi (3) And Others (supra), the Supreme Court has held as below: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa, and B.N. Nagarajan, and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 30. In the present case, the ad hoc appointments of the petitioners cannot termed as illegal, as they have been appointed pursuant to an advertisement, against sanctioned and vacant posts. The petitioners have worked continuously for much more than ten years, even before the interim order was passed in their favour. As per the above enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, the cases of the petitioners ought to be considered for regularization as they have worked for several years. The judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka And Others v. Umadevi (3) And Others (supra) has been discussed by the Supreme Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey And Others (supra), in the following terms: "17. The judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka And Others v. Umadevi (3) And Others (supra) has been discussed by the Supreme Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey And Others (supra), in the following terms: "17. In the present case the writ petitioners (respondents herein) only wish that they should not be discriminated against vis-à-vis the original employees of the Electricity Board since they have been taken over by the Electricity Board "in the same manner and position". Thus, the writ petitioners have to be deemed to have been appointed in the service of the Electricity Board from the date of their original appointments in the Society. Since they were all appointed in the society before 4.5.1990 they cannot be denied the benefit of the decision of the Electricity Board dated 28.11.1996 permitting regularization of the employees of the Electricity Board who were working from before 4.5.1990. To take a contrary view would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. We have to read Umadevi (3) case in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution, and we cannot read it in a manner which will make it in conflict with Article 14. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any judgment, not even of the Supreme Court, can violate the Constitution. 18. We may further point out that a seven-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India has held that reasonableness and non-arbitrariness is part of Article 14 of the Constitution. It follows that the government must act in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution would be violated. Maneka Gandhi case is a decision of a seven-Judge Bench, whereas Umadevi case (3) is a decision of a five-Judge Bench of this Court. It is well settled that a smaller bench decision cannot override a larger bench decision of the Court. No doubt, Maneka Gandhi case does not specifically deal with the question of regularization of government employees, but the principle of reasonableness in executive action and the law which it has laid down, in our opinion, is of general application. 19. It is well settled that a smaller bench decision cannot override a larger bench decision of the Court. No doubt, Maneka Gandhi case does not specifically deal with the question of regularization of government employees, but the principle of reasonableness in executive action and the law which it has laid down, in our opinion, is of general application. 19. In the present case many of the writ petitioners have been working from 1985 i.e. they have put in about 22 years' service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularization is denied even after such a long period of service. Hence apart from discrimination, Article 14 of the Constitution will also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness if employees who have put in such a long service are denied the benefit of regularization and are made to face the same selection which fresh recruits have to face." (emphasis supplied) 31. In the present case as well, the action of the respondents District Panchayat as well as the State Government is required to be tested on the principle of reasonableness in executive action. In the view of this Court, the action of respondent No. 3 in not issuing the advertisement for the regular selection procedure expeditiously, especially after imposing a condition in the appointment orders of the petitioners that they have to undergo the regular selection process and then not conducting the selection process for years together until the petitioners cross the permissible age-limit, is highly unreasonable. Respondent No. 3 bided time for a period of six years before initiating the regular selection process ensuring, by this action that the petitioners become age-barred in the meanwhile. The initiation of the selection process was not in the hands of the petitioners and they cannot be blamed for the plight they find themselves in. 32. In this regard, the observations made by this Court in Pravinsinh Dolatsinh Rana v. State of Gujarat And Ors. (supra), are apposite and are reproduced hereinbelow: "3....The facts as aforesaid are so eloquent to consider that the petitioner has not been treated fairly inasmuch as he could not be deprived of the fruits of the selection at which he was selected and in which he had appeared during the pendency of this Special Civil Application in terms of the order passed by the Court after hearing both the sides. If the candidates at lower position than the petitioner have been appointed, the petitioner could not have been deprived on the ground that while the petition was pending before this Court, he has become overage. Once, the petitioner is given a further chance to appear in the selection in terms of this Court's order dated 25.02.1993 with the expectation that next selection will be held in 1993-94, merely because selections were held in 1996, he cannot be denied the benefit of the selection on the ground that he had now become overage. Aging is a process which no one can stop. The petitioner has done all that was in his control. He had also approached the Court well in time. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner certainly deserves to be considered for appointment on the basis of his being placed at Sr. No. 3 in the select list in the year 1996 and his name ought to have been included in the order at Annexure-B dated 4th October 1996 at appropriate place on the basis of his selection." (emphasis supplied) 33. As held by this Court in the above judgment, aging is a process which nobody can stop. This aspect ought to have been considered by respondent No. 3 while including Condition No. 10 in the appointment orders of the petitioners and while issuing the advertisement for regular selection in the year 1996. It was not in the hands of the petitioners to have stopped the clock from running. However, it was very much in the hands of respondent No. 3 to have held the selection process well in time, so that persons such as the petitioners, who have been appointed by it subject to the condition that they would have to participate in the regular selection process, would have got a fair chance. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the totally unconcerned and casual approach on the part of the District Panchayat. 34. At the same time, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the State Government is supposed to be a model employer. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the totally unconcerned and casual approach on the part of the District Panchayat. 34. At the same time, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the State Government is supposed to be a model employer. It would have behoved the State Government to have framed a uniform policy for MPHW(M) such as the petitioners, covering the entire State of Gujarat, instead of confining the decision only to those MPHW(M) working in Sabarkantha District, as has been done vide the order dated 13.10.2009. This would have ensured equal treatment to all similarly situated MPHW(M) throughout the State, irrespective of the District in which they are working. The fact that a decision has not been taken for all MPHW(M) but only for those working in a particular District, has caused a great deal of anguish and heart-burning to the petitioners, which is quite understandable, considering that they have been discriminated for no fault of their own. 35. As a result of the above discussion and for the aforestated reasons, this Court is of the view that the petitioners deserve to be granted the benefits of regularization with retrospective effect, as have been granted by the order dated 13.10.2009, passed by the State Government in the case of similarly situated persons in Sabarkantha District. 36. Hence, the following order is passed: "The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services from the initial dates of their appointments, as has been done in similarly situated cases, with all consequential benefits. The needful be done by the concerned respondents within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment." 37. The petition is allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.