JUDGMENT : P.P. Bhatt, J. 1. The petitioner, by way of filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/order directing the respondents, their agents and servants to regularize the services of the petitioner as Additional Assistant Engineer with retrospective effect. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under: "2.1 The petitioner was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis as Work-charge Supervisor (Mechanical) by order dated 01.09.1980 and posted in the Office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Material Management Unit, at Ahmedabad. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.01.1984, the services of the petitioner were ordered to be terminated. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar, by filing a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 200 of 1984. The learned Civil Judge by his judgment and order dated 07.08.1987 allowed the said Suit and respondents were permanently restrained from terminating the services of the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision, the respondent-State Government preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 129 of 1988 in the Court of 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Jamnagar. The said appeal came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 24.02.1995. The respondent-State Government thereafter did not pursue the matter further and accepted the decision of the learned Civil Court, which was affirmed by the learned appellate Court. The petitioner, thereafter made representations for regularization of his services and also for giving effect of higher pay scale. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the similarly situated employees, who have been appointed along with the petitioner have been regularized and they have been given the benefit of higher pay scale also. Despite several representations made by the petitioner, the services of the petitioner was not regularized. Hence, this petition." 3. Learned advocate Mr. Adeshra appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is eligible and entitled for regularization of his services in light of the decision given by the learned Civil Court, which was affirmed by the learned Civil Appellate Court. It is submitted that services of all other similarly situated persons have been regularized and the effect of higher pay scale is also given to the persons those who have been regularized. It is submitted that services of all other similarly situated persons have been regularized and the effect of higher pay scale is also given to the persons those who have been regularized. Learned advocate by referring the Para 4.13 of the petition submits that one similarly situated employee namely M.S. Patel and other similarly situated work-charge supervisors have been given regular status. The order passed in favour of such supervisors is also annexed to the petition vide Annexure-O at Page 63. It is submitted that the petitioner has retired from the services during the pendency of the petition on 31.08.2012, but till the date of his retirement, his services have not been regularized by the respondents, and therefore, necessary orders may be issued to give retrospective effect of regularization of services and the arrears of differential amount of salary and the benefit of higher pay scale may be given to the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Ritu Guru appearing for the respondents while opposing the petition has referred to and relied upon the some of the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply. The main contention raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis and when initial appointment was made by the respondents, his name was not sponsored/forwarded by the Employment Exchange. The similarly situated employees whose services have been regularized by the respondents, their names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange, and therefore, services of such employees have been regularized by the respondents. 5. In response to the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Adeshra appearing for the petitioner by referring to the judgment delivered by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar, pointed out that the issue raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is already dealt with and decided by the learned Civil Judge and it has attained finality. In this context, by referring to the decision of the learned Civil Judge, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner was registered in the Employment Exchange Office at Junagadh from the year 1977 and proof of the said fact has been produced at Exh.33. It is further submitted that learned Civil Judge has recorded findings on this particular issue in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. The said findings are also upheld by the learned appellate Court. 6. It is further submitted that learned Civil Judge has recorded findings on this particular issue in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. The said findings are also upheld by the learned appellate Court. 6. Regard being had to the above submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1980 as Work-charge Supervisor by following the selection process, whereby interviews were conducted and considering the educational qualifications and experience, the petitioner was appointed along with two other persons as Work-charge Supervisor by Office Order No. 173 of 1980. It appears that the petitioner's services were about to be terminated. Thereafter, the respondents were decided to terminate the services of the petitioner, but before termination order is made effective, the petitioner filed the Suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 200 of 1984 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar along with an application of injunction. The petitioner was protected by the learned Civil Court, and thereafter the Civil Suit was finally decided by the judgment and order dated 07.08.1987 by passing the following order: "(i) The plaintiff's suit is decree as under:- (ii) It is declared that the termination order of the plaintiff's services dated 21.1.84 is illegal, null and void and ineffective. (iii) The defendants are restrained permanently in implementing the termination order of the plaintiff dated 21.1.84. (iv) The defendants are also permanently restrained in withholding salary, allowances, increments etc. of the plaintiff on account of termination order dated 21.1.84. (v) Temporary injunction granted on 14.2.85 is made absolute. (vi) Defendants shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs of the plaintiff. (v) Decree be drawn accordingly." 7. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent-State Government preferred an appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 129 of 1988 in the Court of 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Jamnagar. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 24.02.1995. It appears that the petitioner made several representations for regularization of his services thereafter, but the services of the petitioner are not regularized by the respondents till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 24.02.1995. It appears that the petitioner made several representations for regularization of his services thereafter, but the services of the petitioner are not regularized by the respondents till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. It further appears that the employees who have been recruited along with the petitioner and such other similarly situated Work-charge Supervisors' services were regularized by the respondents and to demonstrate this fact, one copy of the order is produced along with the petition at Annexure-O. On perusal of the said order, it appears that the respondent authority vide its order dated 30.04.1984 regularized the services of about 14 employees who have been appointed as Work-charge Supervisors. The issue raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the services of the petitioner cannot be regularized as his name was not sponsored/forwarded by the Employment Exchange is already dealt with and decided by the learned Civil Court by recording positive finding in favour of the plaintiff/ petitioner. The relevant abstract of the judgment passed by the learned Civil Court is reproduced herein below: "10. Now regarding clause 1 which speaks that plaintiff is not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Though I asked quarry to the learned Asstt. D.G.P. but he was not able to satisfy me the provisions of law that the person not sponsored by the employment exchange and already appointed, requires to be terminated. In fact, plaintiff's name is registered in the employment exchange office at Junagadh from the year 1977. For the proof of the said fact, he has produced Ex.33. Therefore it is not the case that his name is not at all registered in the employment exchange before he has been appointed as work-charge supervisor. Plaintiff evidence also reveals that the services of other two persons Kapil C. Shah and Mahendra S. Patel who were appointed by one order with the plaintiff are regularised. No evidence is on the record on what dates their services have been regularised. After receiving the termination order, plaintiff moved the Chairman, Selection Committee & Executive Engineer, Ukai (Mechanical Circle) Ahmedabad by his application dated 18.2.84 Ex.36, considering his financial condition, length of his service and his registration with the employment exchange office, Junagadh from the Year 1977. Ex.37 shows that the Executive Engineer, Kadana (Mech. Circle) Gandhinagar forwarded this application for consideration. After receiving the termination order, plaintiff moved the Chairman, Selection Committee & Executive Engineer, Ukai (Mechanical Circle) Ahmedabad by his application dated 18.2.84 Ex.36, considering his financial condition, length of his service and his registration with the employment exchange office, Junagadh from the Year 1977. Ex.37 shows that the Executive Engineer, Kadana (Mech. Circle) Gandhinagar forwarded this application for consideration. On 5.11.85, the Chairman of the Selection Committee also moved the Dy. Secretary, Narmada Development Section Branch E-5, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar to regularise the services of the plaintiff and three other employees whose cases may be same with the case of the plaintiff. It is also recommended in this letter that they have got good experience and their services are required to be regularised in the interest of the Government. It also reveals that the general tendency of appointed work-charge supervisors on different place is either not to join the service or to leave the service after short period. I think that recommendation Ex.39 is quite honest and it is strengthening the case of the plaintiff. The Chairman of the Selection Committee also moved the Superintending Engineer, Narmada Mechanical Circle, Baroda Ex.42, letter dated 1.7.82 to regularise the services of 11 employees, who were not sponsored by the employment exchange. Ex.41 letter written by the plaintiff to his advocate and the evidence of the plaintiff which has remained unchallenged and unrebutted, do establish that the services of K.P. Marod, V.M. Prajapati, J.P. Kharva & J.B. Paragkar were regularised. Conjoin reading of Ex. 41 and 42 establish that the services K.P. Marod, V.M. Prajapati and J.P. Kharva were not sponsored by the employment exchange where the services of other employees were regularised though they were not sponsored by the employment exchange, how the plaintiff can be singled out and can be terminated from the service saying that he has not been sponsored by the employment exchange? At the cost of repetition I would like to say that the service of the plaintiff are not terminated on the ground that he has not obtained 55% of marks in D.M.E. examination or at the time of his appointment, he has crossed the age-limit of 28 years. Only and solely reason on which the services of the plaintiff are terminated is he has not been sponsored by the employment exchange. L.A. Mr. Only and solely reason on which the services of the plaintiff are terminated is he has not been sponsored by the employment exchange. L.A. Mr. A.T. Takhtani appearing on behalf of the plaintiff drew my attention to the authority of the Supreme Court AIR 1987 SC 1227 . The Supreme Court held that the employment exchange Act sec. 4(4) does not oblige any employer to employ those persons only who have been sponsored by employment exchanges. It is held by the Supreme Court as under:- "The object of the Act is not to restrict, but to enlarge the field of choice so that the employer may choose the best and most efficient and to provide an opportunity to the worker to have his claim for appointment considered without the worker having to knock at every door for employment. Therefore the Act does not oblige any employer to employ those persons only who have been sponsored by the employment exchanges. There is no provision in the Act which obliges an employer to make appointment through the agency of the employment exchanges. Far from it, S. 4(4) of the Act, on the employer is under no obligation to recruit any person through the employment exchanges to fill in a vacancy merely because that vacancy has been notified under S. 4(1) or S. 4(2). In the fact of S. 4(4), it cannot be said that the Act imposes any obligation on the employers apart from notifying the vacancies to the employment exchanges." Para 10 of the said Judgment says that instructions issued by the Govt. that in the case of Govt. deptt. the field of choice should, in the first instance, be restricted to candidates sponsored by the employment exchanges is not offend Art. 14 & 16 of the Constitution. L.A. Shri Parmeshwara Rao argued before the Supreme Court that the instructions to appoint the employee only through employment exchange in the Govt. department is violation of Art. 14 & 16. He contended before the Supreme Court that in a Country so wide and where there was much poverty, illiteracy and ignorance and where the net work of employment exchange is not so wide, such instructions are against the Art. 14 and 16. department is violation of Art. 14 & 16. He contended before the Supreme Court that in a Country so wide and where there was much poverty, illiteracy and ignorance and where the net work of employment exchange is not so wide, such instructions are against the Art. 14 and 16. Though Supreme Court found that arguments were most appealing but not accepted the arguments and much stress has been put by the Supreme Court to avoid arbitrariness and to make the favour of the favourite. So the Supreme Court held that the employment through employment exchanges in Govt. deptt. does not restrict the right granted by Art. 14 & 16 of the constitution. But apart from it, there is no rule which provides that only Appointment should be made through employment exchange. There is no rule which provides to safe-guard the interest of class of employee who have been already appointed otherwise than employment exchanges and who have been completely satisfactory in their service. Supreme Court only says in that instructions issued by the Govt. to select the candidates sponsored by the employment exchanges does not violate the Art. 14 & 16. Though plaintiff is not sponsored by the employment exchange. It is explicitly clear that his services were terminated after more than 3 years and his services were found completely satisfactory. Whether in these circumstances, the order terminating the services can be said legal? Evidence also reveals that no adverse remarks are made in the service book of the plaintiff, there is no stigma. His services were terminated only and solely for the reason that he has not been sponsored by the employment exchange. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the termination order of the plaintiff's services is bad and illegal. Moreover it is the fault of the deptt. and not of the plaintiff at the time of recruitment that the deptt. has not asked the names from the employment exchange. It is held by our own High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Kureshi, J. 1983 G.L.H. 228, that once qualifications accepted as satisfactory then the employer cannot turn around and say that qualifications are insufficient or that they were misled. If there is a breach of instructions issued by the Govt. It is held by our own High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Kureshi, J. 1983 G.L.H. 228, that once qualifications accepted as satisfactory then the employer cannot turn around and say that qualifications are insufficient or that they were misled. If there is a breach of instructions issued by the Govt. at the time of recruitment, such mistake or breach cannot be rectified by terminating the services of the plaintiff. Wise and prudent way is to ask the names from the employment exchange as per the instructions of the Government. But if it is not done so, employee already appointed cannot be punished by terminating the services." 8. The said findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) are also affirmed by the learned appellate Court by observing as under: "Now, so far as the ground No. 1 is concerned, admittedly the appointment of the plaintiff was not made through the employment exchange and his name was not sponsored by the employment exchange. It appears that the name of the plaintiff was registered in the employment exchange at Junagadh as per card ex.33 issued to the plaintiff by the Employment Exchange, Junagadh. It also appears that the services of V.S. Baxi were also sought to be terminated alongwith the plaintiff by virtue of the termination order Ex.35 and therefore Mr. Baxi had challenged the said action before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court by filing special C.A. No. 4266/1986, which was decided on 4.4.88. The said decision is reported in 1988 (1) GLH (UJ) 34. Our Hon'ble Gujarat High Court set aside the termination Order by the holding that the persons who have put in 5 to 6 years services should not be made victim of some irregularities committed by certain officers of the department in not calling the names from the employment exchange. The facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the said decision. The act of selecting the candidate who is not sponsored by the employment exchange may be a fault of officers of the Government and the plaintiff, therefore, cannot be made to suffer for the said fault of the officers of the Government as laid down in the above referred decision. The act of selecting the candidate who is not sponsored by the employment exchange may be a fault of officers of the Government and the plaintiff, therefore, cannot be made to suffer for the said fault of the officers of the Government as laid down in the above referred decision. In the circumstances there is a clear evidence to show that the action of the defendants for terminating the services of the plaintiff on the ground that his name was not sponsored from the Employment Exchange Office is illegal and therefore the learned trial Judge was perfectly justified the holding that the impugned order of termination is illegal and unconstitutional. In the circumstances, the finding of point No. 1 is replied in the negative." 9. In view of the aforesaid findings of the fact recorded by the learned Civil Court, which is affirmed by the learned appellate Court, this Court is of the view that the services of the petitioner also deserves to be regularized as it has been regularized qua other similarly situated employees. Moreover, the aforesaid judgment delivered by the appellate Court is not challenged by the respondents-State authorities and thus it has attained finality. Now, by efflux of time the petitioner has retired from the services in the year 2012, and therefore, the respondent-State Government shall give effect of the higher pay scale as and when it has become due qua the present petitioner and shall pay the difference of salary within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner be given effect of regularization of the services from the date when the respondents have passed the order of regularizing the services of Mr. Kalpitkumar C. Shah and Mahendrabhai S. Patel, who were appointed as Work-charge Supervisors by common order at Annexure-A. Since the petitioner has retired from the services, the pensionary benefits be also revised accordingly and effect of the same be also given within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 10. With above observations and directions, the present petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition Allowed.