JUDGMENT : A.J. Shastri, J. 1 The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of challenging the legality and validity of an order dated 18.05.2011 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal at Gandhinagar in Appeal No.53 of 2008, by virtue of which, an order of reinstatement in service came to be passed in favour of respondent. 2. The background of facts in the instant case is that sole respondent herein was originally considered for appointment to the post of Female Health Worker in the District of Vadodara under the District Panchayat Vadodara. On 03.01.1991, the respondent came to be appointed on ad-hoc basis with certain conditions and thereto her appointment was purely on contractual basis. She was placed at village Ranapur Sub Centre, by virtue of aforesaid order with an express condition that her appointment is purely on contractual basis and services can be put to an end either on the lapse of contract tenure or after giving one month notice. It was specifically indicated in condition No.8 that respondent was supposed to resume the duty pursuant to appointment within a period of one week, failing which, the appointment would stand automatically cancelled. 2.1. It is the case of the petitioners – authorities that despite the aforesaid specific terms of the employment instead of resuming the duty, respondent requested to accommodate her at a nearby Sub Center preferably in Padra Taluka. The said request was made on account of multiple reasons. The authorities seems to have taken a reasonable and sympathetic approach and vide order dated 25/27.03.1991 considered the request and accommodated her at Ranapur Sub Centre, Primary Health Center, Mobha. The said order was also communicated to the respondent, wherein also, there was an express condition to resume the duty within a period of 7 days and also a condition to scrupulously observe the condition of an employment. As it seems from the record that pursuant to such accommodation to her at a nearby place for quite for some time she did not resume and later on, on 19.04.1991, she reported for duty i.e. expressly after a period of 7 days and on the very next day i.e. from 20.04.1991 by projecting her ill health proceeded on leave for one day. This can be seen from communication dated 20.04.2091, attached to page 28 of the petition compilation. This can be seen from communication dated 20.04.2091, attached to page 28 of the petition compilation. Thereafter, vide letter dated 24.04.1991, as if she was a regular employee, made a request to grant her medical leave with back date i.e. from 22.04.1991 till she became comfortable. So immediately upon reporting from the very next day, the respondent proceeded on leave, and thereafter, such prolonged absenteeism rather abandonment has led the authority to issue notice firstly on 10.02.1992 requesting to submit the medical papers from the hospital, having not responded to this, even on 23.04.1992, the petitioners – authorities were constrained to submit another notice and then having not responded so far on 22/30.09.1992, a further show-cause notice was given with a request to tender an explanation along with documentary evidence, failing which, her absence from the service would be treated as unauthorized leave, but then also, it appears that till September, 1992, a last reminder was responded on 20.10.1992 and again reiterated her difficulties and for that since husband is residing at a particular place within the very same vicinity her case be considered for appointment. Now, at a place near Halol Road, Vadodara, the authorities as such clearly found that after resuming for one day thereto, beyond permissible limit proceeded on leave and went on making request for a convenient change of place whereas other employees selected along with her have already resumed their duties at their respective place. [2.2] This conduct, on the part of respondent herein has led the authorities to pass an order on 24.11.1995 by detailing out the circumstances and the respondent was discontinued from the services, as she may not be interested and conduct is such that the same was not tolerable. Resultantly, the aforesaid order is passed which came to be challenged by respondent by way of petition which was numbered as Special Civil Application No.1240 of 2000. Resultantly, the aforesaid order is passed which came to be challenged by respondent by way of petition which was numbered as Special Civil Application No.1240 of 2000. [2.3] Since, the authorities, at the relevant point of time, in aforesaid petition indicated the Court about contemplated process of departmental inquiry with certain observations, the petition came to be disposed of on 06.03.2000 and resultantly, at a later point of time, the authorities passed an order on 04.12.2000 and after examining the entire circumstances, found no case in favour of respondent and confirmed the order of discontinuance of her services, even the appeal against the said order also came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2001 which laid the respondent to approach the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar by way of Appeal No.74 of 2001. [2.4] It has been brought to the notice of this Court that after hearing, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 07.12.2001 was pleased to partly allow the appeal and after setting aside the impugned orders, directed the authority to reconsider the issue and pass a fresh order. The operative part of the said order reads as under: “8. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 4-12-2000 and 19-12-2001 by respondent No.1 and 2 respectively are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent No.1 for his consideration from the stage of defect i.e. pass speaking order in accordance with the provisions of law and rules and regulations on the subject with prospective effect. The respondent is directed to pass a speaking order giving prospective effect.” [2.5] It further appears from the record that after the said order, the authority has re-examined the issue and has passed a detailed order after assigning cogent reasons on 10.03.2003, in which, the discontinuance order of respondent from the services came to be maintained by the authority i.e. the District Development Officer, District Panchayat Vadodara. Again, the respondent approached the Tribunal by way of an appeal before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal being Appeal No.53 of 2008 and the learned Tribunal, according to the petitioners - authorities, without considering partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the action of authorities and directed the authorities to reinstate the respondent herein as a Female Health Worker. Again, the respondent approached the Tribunal by way of an appeal before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal being Appeal No.53 of 2008 and the learned Tribunal, according to the petitioners - authorities, without considering partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the action of authorities and directed the authorities to reinstate the respondent herein as a Female Health Worker. But, has clarified that prior benefits that is prior to resumption of duty, she will not be entitled but in this peculiar background of fact when the respondent has resumed the duty for one day only and has made an attempt to continue to challenge the grievance having not been considered by the Tribunal, the appellants approach this Court by way of present petition. 3. This petition appears to have been admitted vide order dated 12.01.2012 with an ad-interim relief in terms of para 9(C) and the said interim protection continued throughout and the protection extended from time to time and the said interim order was also confirmed after hearing both the sides vide order dated 07.03.2012 and then with the aforesaid background, today the petition has come up for consideration before this Court finally. 4. Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for the petitioners – authorities has vehemently contended that here is the classic case where the employee has dealt with the authorities in a peculiar way. First of all, as she was expected to resume the duty within a period of 7 days, she did not maintained that period and then made a request to consider for a nearby place even that has also been considered by the authorities on humanitarian ground but then a device is adopted that after resuming for one day only with immediate effect without prior permission and without submitting any medical papers proceeded on medical leave as if her services were regular services. However, be that as it may, the learned Tribunal while passing the order in this peculiar background of fact of reinstatement after these many years itself is a gross injustice to the authorities. However, be that as it may, the learned Tribunal while passing the order in this peculiar background of fact of reinstatement after these many years itself is a gross injustice to the authorities. Here is the case where a selected is not resuming the authorities under one reason or other and is insisting the authorities to go on considering her request for nearby place for more than two or three occasions and then resuming the duty for one day and unilaterally went on leave and then by making grievance against the action of authorities insisting for reinstatement, this is nothing but a gross abuse of the process by respondent. Resultantly, petition deserves to be allowed. [4.1] Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has further submitted that here is the case, in which, her services were purely on contractual basis and such contract of service contains several conditions for which the respondent is bound to observe and undisputedly the respondent has not observed such conditions which has ultimately led the authorities to discontinue the service, and therefore, question of proper procedure to be observed is also misplaced, but still then, authorities have undertaken such detail process and after complying principles of natural justice and giving more than adequate opportunity ultimately a decision is taken, and as such also, in this peculiar background when the respondent was discontinued way back in the year 1991, having served for one day only and to reinstate. Now, at this stage in the year 2019 would be thoroughly uncalled for particularly when she was bound by terms of contract which clearly have been violated. [4.2] Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has further submitted that it is not the case that authorities have arbitrarily dealt with the respondent. In fact, when she was selected along with others as Female Health Worker, though she was expected to resume within 7 days, has conveniently not resumed and made request for nearby place and that has been humanitarianly considered. But then, an attempt was made to misuse the sympathy shown to her which ultimately led the authorities to discontinue. On the contrary, she has not resumed practically for a period of three months and 15 days from the original appointment and for a period of 25 days even after accepting her request for nearby place. But then, an attempt was made to misuse the sympathy shown to her which ultimately led the authorities to discontinue. On the contrary, she has not resumed practically for a period of three months and 15 days from the original appointment and for a period of 25 days even after accepting her request for nearby place. Therefore, such ad-hoc and purely temporarily employee appointed on contract basis cannot be given any such latitude, as a result of this, the learned Tribunal has not properly exercised its discretion as visible from the record and on this count alone, the order in question be set aside. [4.3] Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw has further submitted that here is the case, in which, there is a series of grievance made first before this Court then before the appellate authority i.e. Tribunal, again got remand order and there again a decision is taken and now this petition. This abuse, at the behest of such an employee, who has no vested right to continue and her terms of the contract are to be observed by such employee having failed to observe the decision taken by the authority cannot be said to be unjust or arbitrarily in any form. According to learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, learned Tribunal misdirected himself from the core issue and the status of respondent in the employment, evidently the terms of appointment have been breached by the respondent which would not permit the respondent to challenge as a matter of right. That being the position, order under challenged deserves to be set aside. [4.4] Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw has further submitted that there are catena of decisions that when an employee has been recruited without due procedure of law or the recruitment rules and such illegal appointments cannot generate any legal right or vested right in favour of appointee and this is the classic example in which the employee has tried to dictate the terms on the employer by conduct this in respectful submission of learned advocate Mr.Munshaw may not be allowed to be encouraged. As a result of this, the Tribunal's order be set aside. 5. As a result of this, the Tribunal's order be set aside. 5. As against this, learned advocate Mr.Jayraj Chauhan appearing for the respondent now has initially made an attempt to convince the Court that the order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper but having realized the chronology of event which has been narrated in the proceeding and the conduct of respondent learned advocate Mr.Chauhan candidly submitted that appropriate order may be passed since facts are peculiar in nature and no much resistance is offered by learned advocate Mr.Chauhan once having convinced himself that respondent has made an attempt to abandon the services and after examining the material, has left the matter to the discretion of the Court and requested to pass an appropriate order in the interest of justice. 6. Since, aforesaid is the situation prevailing on record, having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material, it appears to this Court, prima facie, that here is the employee i.e. respondent out and out is trying to dictate the terms and to secure a term posting and has conveniently not resumed the duty and conveniently not observed the conditions, which are stipulated in her appointment. Even otherwise, for not joining the place of appointment for a period of one week would automatically cancel the appointment but still the petitioners – authorities have extended full opportunity to meet with the circumstances and the action of management, not only the reply has been submitted to the show cause notice but appears to have participated in the process which can be seen from the chronology of event which has been submitted before the Court on page 45 of the petition compilation. This process and the action against the respondent has been considered in accordance with law and after granting more than adequate opportunity to submit the case in defence and once that fact is found to be proved then appropriate course was required to be left it open for the authorities, how to deal with such kind of employee belonging to them. Therefore, considering the overall set of circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is hardly any case made out by original respondent to seek favourable order and the learned Tribunal has miserably failed in appreciating this chronology and has proceeded in general without any just and proper reasons. Therefore, considering the overall set of circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is hardly any case made out by original respondent to seek favourable order and the learned Tribunal has miserably failed in appreciating this chronology and has proceeded in general without any just and proper reasons. In fact, the order in question is perverse to the record and is based upon some another case of Smt. Ritaben Gadhiya and allowed the appeal in part. There appears to be no discussion at length whether said judgment of Smt.Ritaben Gadhiya is applicable to the background of this fact or not. The order appears to be practically a non-dealing with the submissions made by the authority below and the nature of employment of respondent having not been considered by the learned Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the case is made out by the petitioners – authorities particularly when realization of the background has led the opposite parties not too much resist the petition. 7. Time and again, this contractual employment has been subject matter of scrutiny before various courts and looking to the limitation of this status of contractual appointment also, the Court is unable to accept the stand of respondent employee. Resultantly, the petition deserves to be allowed. 8. While coming to this conclusion, the Court has also examined independently the circumstances which are prevailing on record and having gone through the sequence of event in which the respondent has dealt with the authorities and rather compel to go on and accepting the request, this Court is not inclined to grant any equity to the respondent and the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in partly allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. A bare reading of the order impugned would clearly indicates that there seem to be no independent reason found to accept the case of respondent, the Court is inclined to accept the petition, and accordingly, present petition stands allowed in terms of prayer 9(B) with no order as to costs.