Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1144 (GUJ)

Yash Dineshchandra Gajjar v. State of Gujarat

2018-09-28

N.V.ANJARIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : N.V. ANJARIA, J. 1. The petitioner upon completion of his M.B.B.S. Course from a Government Medical College, furnished a bond so as to undertake to serve in a rural area for the bond period of three years. In pursuance of such bond, by order dated 7th August, 2015 passed by the Commissioner, Health, Medical Services and Medical Education, Gandhinagar, the petitioner came to be posted at Community Health Centre, Detroj, District Ahmedabad. The three years bond period nearing expiration, the competent authorities corresponded inter se to proceed to provide that the services of the petitioner shall come to an end with effect from 2nd September, 2018 upon completion of bond period. 2. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, it is these communications dated 25th April, 2018 and 6th July, 2018 that are prayed to be set aside by the petitioner seeking the same to be declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner wants the authorities to regularise his services claiming that he was appointed on a permanent post. 3. The petitioner was placed as Medical Officer, Class II in the pay-scale pursuant to aforesaid office order dated 7th August, 2015. The Government Resolution dated 28th June, 2013 of the Health Department evinces a policy that all students who have studied medical at the Government colleges have to compulsorily render services for three years by giving bond as per the condition of the bond in the rural areas in any district across the State. Since the said three year period for which the petitioner was made to serve expired, it was made afoot as per the impugned inter se communication between the authorities for taking formal action of termination of the services of the petitioner. 4. The prayers in the petition were pressed by learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.K. Majmudar by vehemently submitting that though the appointment of the petitioner was as per the bond, since he was posted against permanent post, he was entitled to be continued and his services deserved to be regularised. 4. The prayers in the petition were pressed by learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.K. Majmudar by vehemently submitting that though the appointment of the petitioner was as per the bond, since he was posted against permanent post, he was entitled to be continued and his services deserved to be regularised. He submitted that the benefit of regularisation ought to have been extended to the petitioner as one time measure in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Paragraph 53 of the decision in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 . It was also submitted that the Government was in need of Medical Officers and that even walk-in-interviews were held periodically. According to the submission of learned Advocate for the petitioner, the discontinuance of services of the petitioner after three years was irrational and arbitrary. 4.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani submitted referring to the contentions raised in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents that the petitioner had no right to continue as Medical Officer, Class II, beyond the bond period of three years. It was submitted that petitioner's posting was pursuant to a policy and the bond given by him was not a source of employment. 5. The import of the order posting the petitioner as Medical Officer was limited and that his employment was time-bound to the bond period. The intent of the authorities was also specific, which was to enforce the bond condition by sending the petitioner to serve in rural area, the petitioner having completed his M.B.B.S. studies from the Government Medical College. The object behind obtaining bond of such nature and enforcing the condition that the Doctor concerned shall have to serve for three years in rural area, which was as per the policy of Resolution dated 28th June, 2013 was to require the student who had availed the facilities of medical education in the Government colleges where the medical studies were highly subsidised, to provide services in rural area and thus availing the services of the passing out doctors of the specified period as contemplated in the bond. 5.1. The conditions of the so appointing letter inter alia provided that the posting was for a period of three years or until availability of the candidate from the Gujarat Public Service Commission whichever is earlier. 5.1. The conditions of the so appointing letter inter alia provided that the posting was for a period of three years or until availability of the candidate from the Gujarat Public Service Commission whichever is earlier. The condition read thus, "this appointment is as a bonded candidate for period of bond or till a candidate selected by Gujarat Public Service Commission made available whichever is earlier". Therefore, even in accordance with this Clause, the appointment was for a limited duration with the condition "whichever is earlier". The order whereby the petitioner was sent to the Community Health Centre for rendering services as Medical Officer, Class II as per the conditions of the bond he executed, was more in the nature of a posting order. It could not be viewed as an appointment as part of public employment stricto sensu. 5.2. Essentially, the kind and nature of the appointment manifested from order dated 7th August, 2015, though styled as an appointment order, was the posting of the petitioner pursuant to his executing a bond and pursuant to the obligation arising from the bond condition to serve in rural area for specific period. The bond so executed and the posting given pursuant to that, was neither the method, nor it was source of employment. It was not an appointment to a post or to a vacancy. This employment of the petitioner of the kind and nature above coupled with the conditions attached, would not attract for the State the rigors of the norms to be followed in the matters of public employment. The obligations as a public employment. It was not to create any enforceable right to continue further in his job. 5.3. The decision in Uma Devi (supra) was a misjudged reliance place in the facts of the case when the petitioner tried to take shelter of observations in Paragraph 53 of the judgment for supporting the prayer in the present case. What is laid down in Uma Devi (supra) that the temporary or daily-waged workman who are recruited without following the regular process of selection, would not have right irrespective of the length of service they may have put in, but proceeded to observe in Paragraph 53 that the State as a employer may offer one time scheme for regularising if they have completed more than 10 years of service to continue on the job without protection of the Court. The class to which the petitioner belonged could not be said to be one covered by Uma Devi (supra). The petitioner who served upon the undertaking given in the bond, was a special class of contractual employee. His appointment could not be treated as a post against vacancy as such or on the permanent post as such. 5.4. In strict sense, the petitioner was even not a temporary employee continued for three years but he was a bond-bound employee who was supposed to serve for the bond period. The petitioner could be treated as a class by himself who served in compliance of the conditions of the bond, acquiring no incidental, attendant, additional or further right beyond serving for the bond period. Accepting the case put forth by the petitioner would even tantamount to variation in the condition. 5.5. While accepting the posting as Medical Officer, the petitioner understood the nature of his posting. The petitioner consciously accepted the rural area bond arrangement knowing that he was going to serve at the centre where he was posted in furtherance of the condition of the bond which he himself had agreed upon and which was for limited period. With open eyes, the petitioner joined. He was aware of the obligations attached and the terms of the bond he had executed. The petitioner is estopped from contending that he is entitled to continue beyond the bond period. 6. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. Communications dated 25th April, 2018 as well as dated 6th July, 2018 and the decision taken by respondent No. 3 reflected therein could not be treated as illegal, arbitrary or violative of Art. 14 or Art. 16 of the Constitution. The petition fails. Notice is discharged. 7. Interim relief was granted by passing order dated 31st August, 2018 in Civil Application No. 1 of 2018. The said interim relief is hereby vacated with dismissal of the petition.