Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 605 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Kodiyatar Manda Amarabhai

2021-07-20

BHARGAV D.KARIA, VIKRAM NATH

body2021
JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Admit. The learned advocate Ms. Sandhya Natani who appears on caveat waives notice of admission of appeal. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates of both the sides, these appeals are taken up for final hearing as it involves common issue and are accordingly heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. For the sake of convenience, Letters Patent Appeal NO. 376/2021 is treated as a lead case. In all the appeals, common issue is with respect to grant of benefit of seniority and continuity of service to the respondents-employees on their reinstatement in service after clearing of CCC/CCC+ computer examination. 4. The factual matrix of each of the respondent-employee in each of the appeal is summarised in the following chart : Particulars Details of the original petitioners appointed as Assistant Clerk (Class-III) at the office of Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Ahmedabad Name Kodiyatar Manda Amarabhai Chaudhary Haresh Meghrajbhai Prajapati Dilipkumar Sendhabhai Prajapati Manoj Shakarabhai Chaudhari Sonalben Rameshbhai Trivedi Simaben Jagdish Kumar LPA NO. i) LPA No.376/2021 in SCA No.6692/2016 ii) LPA No. 378/2021 in SCA No. 10285/2017 LPA No. 382/2021 in SCA No. 7252/2016 i) LPA No. 381/2021 in SCA No. 7254/2016 ii) LPA No. 385/2021 in SCA No. 10286/2017 i) LPA No. 379/2021 in SCA No.7255/2016 ii) LPA No.380/2021 in SCA No. 10287/2017 i) LPA No.384/2021 in SCA No. 7431/2016 ii) LPA No.383/2021 in SCA No. 10288/2017 LPA No. 377/2021 in SCA No. 10062/2017 Appointed on 02/03/2009 02/03/2009 02/03/2009 02/03/2009 02/03/2009 02/03/2009 Regularized on 2.7.2014 w.e.f. 04.03.2014 w.e.f. 04.05.2014 w.e.f. 16.03.2014 w.e.f. 03.03.2014 w.e.f. 05.03.2014 w.e.f. 04.03.2014 Possessing computer Certificate DOEAC Baba Saheb Ambedkar University (GR dated 22/06/2010 at Annexure E) Given Approval for CCC to the said University Passed computer as subject in graduation DOEAC PGDCA (Much Higher Level Computer Course) Vide GR dated 08-02-2008 and 01-04-2017 PGDCA Candidates are given relaxation to pass CCC Exams Details of Application for CCC/CCC+ 01.04.2016 for CCC+ 13.08.2015/GTU 20.02.2015/SPIPA But exam not conducted 14-08-2015 Applied before GTU 10-06-2015. Applied before SPIPA but exam not conducted 03.07.2015 Before SPIPA 12.08.2015 Before Gujarat Forensic Science University, Gandhinagar Petitioner failed with 2 marks in theory and Petitioner was terminated before result declared Petitioner passed from SPIPA which was applied on dated 03.07.2015 Applied on 06.07.2015 before SPIPA But failed with 1 mark in Theory And result declared on 06.01.2016 Further applied on 30.03.2016 before SPIPA before her termination After her termination order was under impression that she was given exemption for CCC exams Terminated on 21.04.2016 Not terminated as stay granted by High Court and matter was allowed by High Court prior to his termination 28.04.2016 18.04.2016 22.04.2016 19.04.2016 Passing of CCC+ examination 16.06.2016 16.06.2016 16.06.2016 16.06.2016 16.06.2016 16.06.2016 Date of reinstatement 18.06.2016 Not terminated 17.06.2016 17.06.2016 20.06.2016 17.06.2016 Remarks Continuity not given, Departmental examinations taken but results kept in seal cover subject to final outcome of the petition Allowed to appear departmental examination, though passed but seniority not given Continuity not given, Departmental examinations taken but results kept in seal cover subject to final outcome of the petition Continuity not given, Departmental examinations taken but results kept in seal cover subject to final outcome of the petition Continuity not given, Departmental examinations taken but results kept in seal cover subject to final outcome of the petition Continuity not given, Departmental examinations taken but results kept in seal cover subject to final outcome of the petition 5. Respondents-employees along with other similarly placed employees preferred Special Civil Application No.6692/2016 with Special Civil Application No.7431/2016, Special Civil Application No.7252/2016, Special Civil Application No.7254/2016, Special Civil Application No. 7255/2016 with a prayer not to terminate their services on the basis of Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 and also challenged the termination order dated 19.04.2016. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 4.5.2016 quashed and set aside the termination orders and granted further period of two years to the respondents-employees to pass CCC/CCC+ computer examination for complying with the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015. 6. The appellant-State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 4.5.2016 preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.2188/2017 and other similar appeals. 7. The respondents-employees cleared CCC examination and they were reinstated back in service on 18.6.2016 without granting the benefits of seniority and continuity as stipulated in the appointment order on the basis of condition no.3 of the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015. 8. 7. The respondents-employees cleared CCC examination and they were reinstated back in service on 18.6.2016 without granting the benefits of seniority and continuity as stipulated in the appointment order on the basis of condition no.3 of the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015. 8. The Division Bench by order dated 4.12.2017 partly allowed the appeals preferred by the State and remanded the matters back to the Learned Single Judge to consider other grounds pleaded in the petition i.e. for long period, training was not conducted by the concerned institute and thereafter, only four months’ time was available and therefore, no sufficient time was given to the original petitioners which was not considered and dealt with by the Learned Single Judge as the petition was allowed on other grounds. 9. Out of six respondents-employees of these appeals, four employees preferred Special Civil Application nos.10285/2017 to 10288/2017 seeking implementation of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 4.5.2016 in their respective Special Civil Applications and to regularize the services of the respondents-employees with effect from 2.7.2014. Further prayer was also made to allow the respondents-employees to sit in the departmental examination of Senior Clerk. 10. The Learned Single Judge vide interim order permitted the respondent-employees to appear in the examination subject to final outcome of the petitions and their results were ordered to be kept in sealed cover. The Learned Single Judge by order dated 20.3.2019 which is impugned in these appeals passed in the matters which were remanded back by the Division Bench, allowed the petitions directing that the appellant-State shall pass appropriate orders granting seniority to the respondents-employees on the ground that the respondents-employees cannot be made to suffer by applying the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 retrospectively. 11. So far as the respondents-employees of Letters Patent Appeal No. 377/2021 in Special Civil Application No.10062/2017 and Letters Patent Appeals No.382/2021 in Special Civil Application No.7252/2016 are concerned, service of both the respondents-employees were regularised on 2.7.2014 with effect from 4.3.2014 and 4.5.2014 respectively and service of Trivedi Simaben Jagdish Kumar was terminated on 19.4.2016 whereas service of Chaudhary Haresh Meghrajbhai was not terminated as stay was granted by this Court and matter was allowed prior to his termination. Trivedi Simaben Jagdish Kumar is holding PGDCA computer degree which is much higher level computer course as per Government Resolutions dated 8.2.2008 and 1.4.2017 and was given relaxation to pass CCC+ examination whereas Chaudhary Haresh Meghrajbhai was holding certificate from Baba Saheb Ambedkar University which is considered equivalent to CCC+ examination as per Government Resolution dated 22.6.2010. Similarly other four employees were also possessing computer certificate of DOEACC or passed graduation with computer subject. 12. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.03.2019, the appeals were preferred with delay which is condoned by order dated 26th March, 2021 and the appeals were heard on merits on the same date. 13. Government Resolution dated 16.2.2006 issued by the Finance department of the State Government provided for appointment by direct recruitment on probation with fixed pay on the post of all the cadres of class-III and IV posts of the State Government. 14. By Government Resolution dated 30.9.2006 it was made compulsory for all the Government employees including direct recruits and promotees to pass CCC/CCC+ examination as per the Rules of 2006. 15. By Notification dated 30.9.2006, the Gujarat Civil Services Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules, 2006 (here- in-after referred to as “the Rules 2006”) have come into force with effect from 1.10.2006 providing for regulating the conditions of service vis-a-vis Computer Competency Training and Examination. Rule 9 of Rules, 2006 reads as under : “9. Passing of Examination:- (1) A Government employee appointed either by direct recruitment or on the basis of the result of a competitive examination held for the purpose of appointment or by selection shall during his probation period be required to pass the examination under these rules: Provided that if the Government employee fails to pass the examination during the probation period, notwithstanding any things contained in any other rules, his probation period may be extended:- (a) In respect of class III employee for a further period not exceeding one year, and (b) In respect of class II and I posts for further period not exceeding two year: Provided further that if he fails to pass the examination his extended period of probation, his services shall be terminated in case he passes the examination thereafter he may be reinstated. (2) Where an appointment to any post is to be made by promotion, no employee shall be entitled to such promotion without having passed the examination prescribed under these rules: Provided that the Government may promote any employee provisionally, subject to the condition that he shall have to pass the examination on or before the 31st March, 2007. Explanation:- The Government employee who has passed once the requisite examination as specified in rule 3, shall not be required to pass such examination again at the time of his next promotion.” 16. By circular dated 17.12.2007, clarifications were made with regard to passing of CCC/CCC+ examination clarifying that the examination taken by DOEACC and Ambedkar University are valid examination and certificate issued by such examination are to be accepted. 17. Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1967”) have been amended from time to time. Rule 9 of the said Rules provide for appointment to service or post in State service. Rule 9A was inserted by Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 which reads as under : “9A. Appointment to service or post in Subordinate Services or Inferior Services:- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or any rules or orders relating to selection of a person by direct recruitment in the Subordinate Service or Inferior Services, (1) a candidate selected by direct selection or on the result of a competitive examination shall be appointed on contractual basis in accordance with and on such terms and conditions as prescribed by the Government from time to time. (2) a candidate appointed in accordance with sub-rule(1) shall be given, at the end of contractual period, the pay scale prescribed for the concerned post on his performance being found satisfactory during the stipulated period of service on contractual basis; (3) Such candidate shall, during the stipulated period of service on contractual basis, be required to pass the CCC examination for Computer Knowledge as prescribed in Gujarat Civil Service Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules, 2006; (4) Such candidate shall, during the stipulated period of service on contractual basis, be required to undergo pre-service training and pass the post-training examination in accordance with the rules prescribed or as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time (5) Such candidate shall, after regular appointment, pass and examination in Hindi or Gujarati or both, as the case may be, in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Government from time to time. Provide that sub-rules (3),(4) and (5) shall not apply to the appointments made to the Inferior Services on fixed pay on contractual basis.” 18. Thus, as per Notification dated 4.6.2009, Rule 9A of the Rules, 1967 was inserted which provides to pass the CCC/CCC+ examination in computer knowledge as per Sub-rule(3) of Rule 9A. Another Government Resolution of the same date i.e. 4.6.2009 for employment on contract basis with fixed pay for Class-III and IV posts contained Annexure-I stipulating the terms and conditions of appointment of employees on contract basis with fixed pay. Clause(2) of Condition no. 11 of terms and conditions provides for passing of pre-training examination and computer knowledge examination for considering such contractual employee for regular appointment. Clause (2) of Condition no.11 states that if the employee do not pass the pre-service training examination or computer knowledge examination then such employee cannot be appointed on regular pay scale and his services may be terminated. Hence, there is Notification dated 04.06.2009 by which Rule 9A is inserted in Rules, 1967 and there is Government Resolution dated 04.06.2009 which provides for terms and conditions for appointment on contractual basis for fixed pay at Annexure-I 19. Hence, there is Notification dated 04.06.2009 by which Rule 9A is inserted in Rules, 1967 and there is Government Resolution dated 04.06.2009 which provides for terms and conditions for appointment on contractual basis for fixed pay at Annexure-I 19. Thereafter Notification dated 23.10.2015 amending the Rules 1967 was issued which reads as under : “NOTIFICATION General administrative Department Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar Dated the 23th October 2015 NO.GS/35/2015/CRR/11/2015/312911/G-5:- In exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the constitution of India Governor of Gujarat hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Gujarat civil service classification and Recruitment(General) Rules,1967, namely:- (1) {i} These rules may be called the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment {General} {Forth Amendment} Rules,2015. {ii} They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 4th June, 2009. 2. In the Gujarat Civil Service Classification and Recruitment {General} Rules, 1967 in rule 9A in sub-rule(3), after the words “contractual basis”, the words “or within a period of two years thereafter” shall be inserted. By order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat,” 20. Whereas Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 provides for amending the Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 for appointment in class-III and IV posts on contract basis with fixed pay. 21. Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 has substituted clause(2) of condition no.11 of terms and conditions of Annexure-I to Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 providing for appointment on the post of class-III and IV posts on contract with fixed pay and as per Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, it is provided that the applicant who is regularly appointed has to pass CCC examination for computer knowledge within two years from the date of appointment. 22. 22. Further, the said Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 has substituted clause(2) of condition no.12 of the Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 for appointment on class-III and IV posts on contract basis with fixed pay with reference to the seniority of such employee and it has been provided in Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, by cancelling sub-clause(2) of condition no.12 of terms and conditions at Annexure-I to Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009, to the effect that when the employee has passed CCC examination within the contract period, then such employee would be entitled to regular pay scale and seniority but the employee who has not passed CCC examination within two years from the date of regular appointment, then services of such employee would be terminated immediately and after such employee passes CCC examination then the employee can be reinstated without giving the benefit of seniority. 23. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Pathak submitted that except for the respondents-employees in these appeals and two others who have not challenged the termination, all other similarly situated employees had cleared the CCC/CCC+ computer examination as per the Rules as well as the Government policy. 23.1) The Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Pathak submitted that the Learned Single Judge has completely ignored the Rules, 1967, more particularly Rule 9A(3) which clearly mandates for clearing CCC examination. These rules were in existence since the time the respondents-employees were appointed on contractual basis and the respondents were aware about the Recruitment Rules. 23.2) Ms. Pathak submitted that the Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate various Government policies for the recruitment of Class III employees which have all throughout stipulated for the requirement of CCC/CCC+ at two stages which is firstly at entry level wherein the certificate course conducted by DOEACC, any degree or diploma certificates for syllabus having computer as a subject which are issued by the authorized universities or educational training institutions would be considered valid. However, this would be at an entry level as a pre-requisite of entering Government service. Second stage is after getting selected, during the period of training or probation period the employees are required to obtain CCC/CCC+ certificate from Government Centers. This policy is in existence since 2007 and therefore the contention of the respondents-employees that they were not required to obtain ccc/ccc+ certificate as they were possessing DOEACC certificates is thoroughly misconceived. 23.3) Ms. Second stage is after getting selected, during the period of training or probation period the employees are required to obtain CCC/CCC+ certificate from Government Centers. This policy is in existence since 2007 and therefore the contention of the respondents-employees that they were not required to obtain ccc/ccc+ certificate as they were possessing DOEACC certificates is thoroughly misconceived. 23.3) Ms. Pathak further submitted that the Learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the provisions of The Gujarat Civil Services Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules, 2006 and more particularly Rule 3(a)(i) as well as Rule 9 thereof. She further submitted that the respondents-employees have at no stage challenged these policies governing the appointments of Class III posts and requirement regarding the provision of CCC/CCC+ certificate post entry in the Government Service and this policy is uniformly adhered to in the entire State of Gujarat in all the recruitments of Class III and Class IV posts in various departments of the State and it is not that the respondents-employees are the only ones required to obtain CCC/CCC+ certificate post their entry in Government Service. It was further submitted that any deviation to the same would create a precarious situation inasmuch as in one case the benefit of seniority is given ignoring the requisite criteria, the same would create a situation of anomaly amongst the employees and cause prejudice to the interests of several employees who have adhered to the policy and cleared CCC/CCC+ examination as required and they would be affected adversely. 23.4) It was also submitted that out of 178 candidates in the appellant department who were appointed as Assistant Clerks along with the respondents, except the present six respondents, all the other employees have cleared CCC/CCC+ examination either during their contractual period or within two years of their reinstatement and it is only the respondents-employees who have raised an issue. Further, seniority lists are prepared arranging the inter se seniority of the employees in the department based upon their clearing CCC/CCC+ examination. It was further submitted that those employees whose seniority would be affected were also not joined as party respondent and without they being joined as party respondents, the Learned Single Judge has been pleased to issue straight away such directions in the impugned order. 23.5) The Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. It was further submitted that those employees whose seniority would be affected were also not joined as party respondent and without they being joined as party respondents, the Learned Single Judge has been pleased to issue straight away such directions in the impugned order. 23.5) The Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Pathak further submitted that the Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that in the earlier round of litigation the contentions of the State as regards to requirement of passing CCC/CCC+ examination at two levels was accepted by the order dated 04.08.2016 and it is only qua granting additional chance that the Learned Single Judge in the earlier round vide order dated 04.05.2016 granted further opportunity of two years in clearing CCC/CCC+ examination which was quashed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State. It is therefore submitted that after having accepted the order dated 04.05.2016, it would not be open for the respondents-employees to now contend in the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State that they were not required to clear CCC/CCC+ examination and that the policies were not applicable. 23.6) Ms. Pathak further submitted that the Learned Single Judge has completely erred in not taking into consideration the order passed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal no. 2188 of 2017 and allied appeals preferred by State. It was submitted that observation of the Learned Single Judge in the impugned order regarding time left for clearing CCC/CCC+ examination was only four to five months, is erroneous since the condition to clear CCC/CCC+ examination was in existence right from the inception. It was submitted that the Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that without there being a challenge to the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 or the Recruitment Rules, the directions as per the impugned order could not have been issued. 23.7) The Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that admittedly the respondents-employees did not possess the requisite CCC/CCC+ examination certificate and hence their services were terminated as per the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015. Thereafter, since they had subsequently obtained CCC/CCC+ examination certificate, they were again reinstated back in service without protection of seniority as per the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 and the appointment orders also reflected that they are reinstated pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 without there being protection to their seniority. 23.8) Ms. Thereafter, since they had subsequently obtained CCC/CCC+ examination certificate, they were again reinstated back in service without protection of seniority as per the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 and the appointment orders also reflected that they are reinstated pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 without there being protection to their seniority. 23.8) Ms. Pathak further submitted that the reliance placed on the Government Resolution dated 08.02.2008 is thoroughly misconceived as the earlier part of the said Government Resolution provides for recognition of different courses conducted by different institutions apart from DOEACC for the purpose of basic knowledge of computer. The Government Resolution further stipulates that if a candidate who has been in Government Service and who has cleared CCC/CCC+ examination as per the Government Resolution/Notification dated 30.09.2006 as the case may be for the purpose of promotion/higher pay scale on his selection as a direct recruit, thereafter if the employee gets appointed for some other post in Government Department, he/she is exempted from passing CCC/CCC+ examination. 23.9) Ms. Pathak placed reliance upon the two decisions in case of State of Maharashtra v. Anita and another reported in (2016) 8 SCC 293 and Sharad v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2009) 1 SCC 673 in support of her submissions wherein it is held that after having accepted the appointment there cannot be challenge to the nature of appointment; policy decision may not be interfered with and failure to pass departmental examination as per the rules and within chances given and consequent loss of seniority cannot be interfered with. 24. On the other hand, the learned advocate Ms. Sandhya Natani appearing for the respondents-employees-original petitioners, submitted that the respondents-employees were not required to clear or pass CCC/CCC+ examination as they were possessing valid computer certificate or degree when they were initially appointed on the post of Assistant Clerks (Class-III) with the office of Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Ahmedabad. It was pointed out that Rule 9A of the Rules, 1967 was amended first time by Government notification dated 4.6.2009 introducing appointment on contractual basis prescribing the fixed pay scale and the said Rules provided for passing of CCC examination for computer knowledge as prescribed in the Rules 2006. It was pointed out that Rule 9A of the Rules, 1967 was amended first time by Government notification dated 4.6.2009 introducing appointment on contractual basis prescribing the fixed pay scale and the said Rules provided for passing of CCC examination for computer knowledge as prescribed in the Rules 2006. It was pointed out that thereafter in the year 2015, by Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, Rules were amended and Rule 9A of the Rules,1967 was modified, stipulating that if an employee fails to obtain CCC/CCC+ Examination Certificate during the contractual period, then the employee is required to obtain CCC/CCC+ Examination Certificate within two years from the date he/she is appointed on regular pay scale and if the employee fails to obtain CCC/CCC+ Examination Certificate within two years of appointment in regular pay scale, his or her services will be terminated and after termination, if an employee obtains CCC/CCC+ Examination Certificate, then he/she shall be reinstated back in service, however he/she would be reinstated without his/her protection of seniority. 24.1) The Learned advocate Ms. Natani submitted that as per Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, the respondents-employees have cleared their examination of CCC+ in the computer knowledge though they were having computer knowledge prior to their appointment and as such, the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge does not require any interference. It was submitted that the Division bench in earlier round remanded the matter back to the Learned Single Judge to consider the submissions made before the Learned Single Judge with regard to applicability of Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015. The Learned advocate Ms. Natani relied upon the following observations of the order of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2188/2017 : “9.0. However, it is the case on behalf of the original petitioners that as such there were other grounds pleaded in the petition viz. for a long period training was not conducted by the concerned institute and thereafter only four months time was available and therefore, no sufficient time was given to the original petitioner. However, it is the case on behalf of the original petitioners that as such there were other grounds pleaded in the petition viz. for a long period training was not conducted by the concerned institute and thereafter only four months time was available and therefore, no sufficient time was given to the original petitioner. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that aforesaid aspect has not been dealt with and/or considered by the Learned Single Judge and as such The Learned advocate for the petitioners did not make any further submission, as such The Learned Single Judge has allowed the petition on other ground, therefore, we are of the opinion that while quashing and setting aside the impugned common order, if the matters are remanded to the Learned Single Judge to pass afresh order after considering all the grounds/submissions to be made, which are already raised in the petition, it will meet end of justice. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these appeals are allowed in part. The impugned common order dated 04.05.2016 passed by the Learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 6692 of 2016, 7431 of 2016, 7252 of 2016, 7254 of 2016 and 7255 of 2016 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the matters are remanded to the Learned Single Judge to consider other grounds so pleaded in the petition and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits and in consonance with the provisions of statutory Rule viz. Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 and other Government Resolutions, if any. Now, matters may be placed before the Learned Single Judge taking up such matters for final hearing. All these appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 and other Government Resolutions, if any. Now, matters may be placed before the Learned Single Judge taking up such matters for final hearing. All these appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.” 24.2) It was submitted that in view of above observations made by the Division Bench, the Learned Single Judge has considered the case of the respondents-employees-original petitioners and held that Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 cannot be applied retrospectively to the detriment of respondents-employees-original petitioners as the said Government Resolution only clarifies that an employee has to pass CCC/CCC+ examination within two years after he/she is put in regular pay scale and if the employee fails to pass the same then his services will be terminated provided that if he/she thereafter passes the same, he/she will be reinstated in service without the benefit of seniority. It was therefore, submitted that the time period of two years for passing of the examination provided in the said Government Resolution is rightly considered with effect from 23.10.2015 and not two years from the date of regularisation of service of the respondent-employees in the year 2014 as the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 has come into effect after the services of the respondents-employees original petitioners were regularised in the year 2014. It was submitted that the Learned Single Judge has therefore, taken into consideration the fact that the original petitioners were getting only 4 to 5 months for clearing CCC/CCC+ examination as per Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015. 24.3) The Learned advocate Ms. Natani therefore, submitted that the appeals are required to be dismissed as there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned Single Judge. 25. Having heard the Learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge, short question which arises for consideration is that whether Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 would be applicable from the date when it came into effect or would it govern retrospectively when the services of the respondents-employees original petitioners were regularized? 26. In order to answer the question, we may revisit Rule 9A of Rules, 1967 together with the Notifications and Government Resolutions issued by the State Government from time to time. 27. 26. In order to answer the question, we may revisit Rule 9A of Rules, 1967 together with the Notifications and Government Resolutions issued by the State Government from time to time. 27. On conjoint reading of Notification dated 23.10.2015 which has amended Rule 9A by inserting words “or within a period of two years thereafter” after the words “contractual basis” under Sub-rule(3) of Rule 9A of Rules, 1967 and Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 which has substituted conditions no.11(2) and 12(2) of the terms and condition for appointment prescribed in Annexure-I of the Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 for appointment on the posts of class-III and IV posts on contract basis with fixed pay would mean that Rule 9A(3) is amended to the effect that the employee who is appointed on contractual basis, is required to pass CCC/CCC+ examination for computer knowledge within a period of two years after contractual period is over and on basis of such amendment which has come into effect from 4.6.2009, clause 11(2) and 12(2) of the terms and conditions for appointment on contractual basis in Annexure-I of the Government Resolution dated 04.06.2009 have been substituted by Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015. Therefore, it cannot be said that Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 substituting clauses 11(2) and 12(2) of the terms and conditions for appointment on contractual basis for fixed pay would be applicable with effect from 4.6.2009 making it compulsory for the employees who are appointed on regular basis prior to coming into force of Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 to pass CCC/CCC+ examination within two years from the date of their regular appointment failing which service of such employee would be terminated. 28. As the terms and conditions of appointment on contractual basis stipulated in Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 have been substituted by Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, the Learned Single Judge rightly held that Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 would be applicable prospectively i.e. from 23.10.2015 and not retrospectively and the concerned employee whose service is regularised as per Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 as per Rule 9A(3)of the Rules,1967 which is amended by Notification dated 23.10.2015, period of two years is to be considered from the date of Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 and not from the date of regularisation of such employee. 29. 29. In view of the above, if the proposition which is canvassed on behalf of the appellant-State is accepted, then it would result in anomaly to the effect that the employee whose service are regularised pursuant to condition no.11(2) of the terms and conditions of the appointment as per Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009, would never get the benefit of two years from the date of regularsiation to clear CCC/CCC+ examination which is a pre-requisite for the purpose of continuity in service. 30. By Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, when clause nos.11(2) and 12(2) of the terms and conditions for appointment to the posts of Class-III and IV on contract basis with fixed pay as stipulated in Annexure-I to the Government Resolution dated 04.06.2009 have been substituted, the same has to be applied from the date of resolution otherwise it would create injustice to the employees who are continued in service pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 or whose services are terminated as per condition no.11(2) of the terms and conditions. 31. Prior to Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, Sub-clause(2) of condition no.11 did not provide for termination of service for not passing CCC/CCC+ examination as it provided only for consideration to terminate the service by the authority, whereas Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 has substituted sub-clause(2) of condition no.12 which earlier provided that appointment in regular pay scale is to be given as per the recruitment rules by considering the seniority on the date of appointment. However, sub-clause (2) of condition no.12 is substituted by Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 stipulating that the service of the employee who has not passed CCC/CCC+ examination from the date of regularisation within two years, then service of such employee would be terminated and only when such employee passes CCC/CCC+ examination then they are to be reinstated without giving effect of seniority. Therefore, respondent authorities have applied Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 by invoking sub-clause(2) of condition no.12 in case of the respondents-employees as if the said Government Resolution is applicable with effect from 4.6.2009 and the petitioners were aware about the change in terms and conditions of their employment in the year 2014 when they were regularly appointed. However, when the respondents-employees were regularly appointed in the year 2014, sub-clause(2) of condition no.11 prior to its substitution as Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 was in operation. However, when the respondents-employees were regularly appointed in the year 2014, sub-clause(2) of condition no.11 prior to its substitution as Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 was in operation. Notification dated 23.10.2015 has provided for passing the examination within two years after the contractual period is over and as such, both the Notification and Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 would be applicable to the respondents-employees enabling them to pass the examination for computer knowledge within two years of the date of issuance of such Notification and Government Resolution. If the original petitioners-respondents-employees are subjected to passing of examination for computer knowledge within two years from the date of their regular appointment at the end of their contractual period, then they would be left with only 4 to 5 months to clear such examination which is not the intention of the Notification or Government Resolution providing for two years period to the employees who are unable to pass the examination for computer knowledge. In the facts of the case, the petitioners have already passed the examination of CCC/CCC+ on 16.6.2016 within two months from the end of the two years from the date of regular appointment. 32. In view of above analysis, the appellant-State could not have terminated the services of the original petitioners-respondents-employees invoking the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 because for the first time, terms and conditions of appointment on which the original petitioners-respondents-employees were appointed were altered on 23.10.2015 which could not have been applied retrospectively by the appellant-State terminating the services of the original petitioners on the ground that they did not clear CCC/CCC+ examination within two years from the end of their contract period and/or regular appointment. Therefore, the order of termination passed in case of each of the original petitioner was illegal and consequently, further appointment orders issued by reinstating the respondents-employees with condition that seniority would not be considered are also illegal. The original petitioners respondents-employees have therefore, rightly been given the benefits of continuity of service by the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge. 33. The original petitioners respondents-employees have therefore, rightly been given the benefits of continuity of service by the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge. 33. Reliance placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra v. Anita and another (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case as the said decision relates to the effect of policy decision of the State Government, whereas in the facts of the present case the respondents-employees are not affected by the policy decision of the State Government because they are entitled to pass CCC/CCC+ examination of computer knowledge as provided in notification dated 23.10.2015 and for that purpose Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 cannot be invoked by refusing to give them the continuity of service and seniority. Similarly, decision in case of Sharad v. State of Maharashtra (supra), is also not applicable in the facts of the case because the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 cannot be made applicable retrospectively as explained in detail herein-above. 34. In view of the foregoing reasons, all the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. The appellant-State is directed to implement the order passed by the Learned Single Judge by passing appropriate order granting seniority to the respondents-employees and also to give the benefits of the result of the departmental examination which is kept in sealed cover if the respondents-employees have cleared the same and appropriate order be passed granting such benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. 35. All Appeals accordingly stand rejected with no order as to costs. Civil Applications also stand rejected.