Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1452 (GUJ)

J. Venkataramanan v. Government Of Gujarat

2024-06-28

VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2024
ORDER : (Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.) : 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has challenged the impugned communication No.1147/2023, dated 04.08.2023, addressed by the Registrar, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, under the instructions of the learned Principal Judge, whereby the petitioner was informed that the representation made by the petitioner to grant exemption from passing the Gujarati Language Test, has been ordered to be “Filed”. 1.1 The petitioner further challenges the impugned communication No.AC/502/2023, dated 06.10.2023 addressed by the Registrar, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, under the instructions of the learned Principal Judge informing the petitioner that since the petitioner did not clear the Gujarati Language Test, the increments, Higher Grade and Promotion, already granted to the petitioner, shall be withdrawn. It is the case of the petitioner that both the impugned communications are against the principles of law, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of the concerned Rules i.e. The Gujarat Government Servants (Lower Standard and Higher Standard Gujarat Language Examination) Rules, 1970. In view thereof, the present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: “9. The petitioner, therefore, most respectfully prays that a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and be pleased to hold that the impugned communications dated 04.08.2023 (Annexure-A) as well as communication dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure-B) holding the same as illegal, against the principles of natural justice, without application and in violation of Articles- 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and be further pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant exemption to the petitioner from passing the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination, as per the provisions of proviso to Rule-4 of The Gujarat Government Services (Lower Standard and Higher Standard Examination Gujarati Language Examination) Rules, 1970. c) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the action of the respondent authority in asking the petitioner to clear the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination at this fag end of his career, is absolutely erroneous, illegal, against the settled provisions of law and is nothing but cruelty as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. d) By an appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus, Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the respondent No.2 authority has no right to take back the increments, higher-grade, upgradation/ promotion already granted to the petitioner or to keep in abeyance the other retiral benefits of the petitioner. e) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this application, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to grant the necessary sanction for preparation of pension papers of the petitioner and be further pleased to refrain from taking back the increments, higher-grade, upgradation/promotion already granted to the petitioner and to provide all other retiral benefits without insisting for production of the certificate in Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination. f) Such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and expedient be granted in favour of the petitioner. g) Costs of this petition be provided for to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus: 2.1 The respondent No.2 herein published an advertisement bearing Notice No.35/1991, inviting applications for the post of Personal Assistants (English Stenographers, Grade- I) in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 plus allowances, on 15.10.1991 wherein, the qualifications prescribed was that the candidate should be between 18 and 35 years of age and having passed the SSC Examination or examination recognized by the Government equivalent thereto and must possess a speed in English Shorthand of 120 words per minute and a speed of 40 words per minute in English Typewriting and hold Government Commercial Certificate (GCC) Examination for the same. The said advertisement dated 15.10.1991 is duly produced at Annexure – C, page 36, to the petition. 2.2 The petitioner being fully qualified, applied for the said post and ultimately, came to be selected and appointed on the establishment of the respondent No.2 as Personal Assistant (English Stenographer, Grade- I) vide Office Order No.40/1992 dated 03.03.1992. The said advertisement dated 15.10.1991 is duly produced at Annexure – C, page 36, to the petition. 2.2 The petitioner being fully qualified, applied for the said post and ultimately, came to be selected and appointed on the establishment of the respondent No.2 as Personal Assistant (English Stenographer, Grade- I) vide Office Order No.40/1992 dated 03.03.1992. The appointment order was on the condition that the candidates will be required to pass the requisite examinations in Hindi and Gujarati Languages, within the prescribed time. The said Office Order is duly produced at Annexure – D and the said condition is at Clause – 5, page 38 to the petition. 2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, the Recruitment Rules for Recruitment to Class – III and IV Services in the Subordinate Judicial Services, 1957 was in vogue wherein, there was no such condition has been mentioned in the said Rules, 1957. The petitioner was assured at the relevant point of time that the said condition could be exempted. Under such circumstances, the petitioner accepted the appointment order of the respondent No.2 and joined the services with effect from 23.03.1992. 2.4 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 misconstrued the GCC Examination as Gujarat Certificate Examination instead of Government Commercial Certificate Examination and as such, the entire list was sent to the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat for its approval. The Hon’ble High Court vide communication No.B.1458/79 dated 28.02.1992 re-fixed the seniority and placed the petitioner at Sr.No.2 for want of such GCC Certificate, in-spite of the fact that on merit, the petitioner was at Sr.No.1 and made the appointment of the petitioner in relaxation of the requirement of production of Certificate of requisite speed of 120 w.p.m. in English Shorthand and 40 w.p.m. in English Typing from the GCC Examination Board. At the relevant point of time also, while approving the select list, such condition of clearing Hindi/ Gujarati Language Examination was not imposed. At the relevant point of time also, while approving the select list, such condition of clearing Hindi/ Gujarati Language Examination was not imposed. 2.5 It is the case of the petitioner that after the petitioner had put up nine years of service with the respondent No.2, the petitioner became entitled to the first higher pay grade as per the policy of the Government prevailing at that point of time, which was initially refused on the ground of the petitioner having been appointed on ad-hoc and temporary basis and that, the same has not been regularized. 2.6 In light of the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.9322 of 2003 wherein, by order dated 13.10.2003, the said petition came to be allowed. It is further the case of the petitioner that at the relevant point of time also, the respondent authorities did not raise any contention regarding the petitioner not clearing the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination because of which, such grant of higher grade was stalled. Pursuant to the order dated 13.10.2003 passed in Special Civil Application No.9322 of 2003, the petitioner came to be granted his first higher pay grade with effect from 01.03.2001 and an entry was also made in the service book of the petitioner. The said entry showing the petitioner having been granted first higher pay grade with effect from 01.03.2001 is duly produced at Annexure – G to the petition. 2.7 In the meantime, pursuant to the order dated 25.02.1994 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.412 of 1995 in Special Civil Application No.7140 of 1989, the Government of Gujarat conferred Gazetted status upon all the posts of Stenographer, Grade- I of the respondent No.2 – authority and re-designated them as Private Secretaries (Stenographer, Grade – I) Class – II with effect from 30.04.1986 and as such, the services of the petitioner became part of the State Service with effect from 19.01.1996 and thereafter, the Government upgraded 10% of the posts of Private Secretaries (Stenographer, Grade- I) Class – II, in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 and upgraded the same as Principal Private Secretaries, Grade- I, Class- I and also authorized the respondent No.2 herein to grant the same accordingly. The petitioner has been confirmed on the post of Private Secretary (English Stenographer, Grade – I) Class – II vide Office Order No.203/1998 dated 04.07.1998. At this stage also, the said confirmation is without any condition. The petitioner has been confirmed on the post of Private Secretary (English Stenographer, Grade – I) Class – II vide Office Order No.203/1998 dated 04.07.1998. At this stage also, the said confirmation is without any condition. 2.8 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner came to be upgraded/promoted to the post of Principal Private Secretary, Grade- I, Class – I, in the establishment of the respondent No.2 vide Office Order No.590/2008. It is reiterated by the petitioner that the said up-gradation/promotion is also unconditional and the Office Order No.590/2008 mentioned in the service book of the petitioner, duly produced at Annexure-I to the petition. The petitioner has continued to serve with the respondent No.2 authority without any hindrance. The respondent No.2 never informed the petitioner that because of his non-clearance of Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination, the work of the respondent No.2 is hindered or that the respondent No.2 faces any difficulty in the work. Further, the service record of the petitioner is unblemished and blotless. 2.9 The Government of Gujarat in consultation with the High Court, implemented the First National Judicial Pay Commission for non-judicial officers and staff of the Subordinate Courts of the State of Gujarat (known as Shetty Pay Commission) with effect from 10.04.2017 and accordingly, framed the new Recruitment Rules namely, The Non-Judicial Officers and Staff of the Courts (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the Rules, 2017’) which states that the Government Servants shall have to clear the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination, as per the policy of the Government. The said Rules, 2017 is duly produced at Annexure – J to the petition. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.2 herein issued Office Order No.473/2021 wherein, for the first time in 30 years, the respondent No.2 directed the employees who had not cleared the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination, to clear the same. The petitioner got the copy of the concerned Rules under which, the petitioner is required to pass the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination namely “The Gujarat Government Servants (Lower Standard and Higher Standard Gujarati Examination) Rules, 1970, dated 14.08.1970, duly produced at Annexure- K to the petition. It is only then that the petitioner came to know about such examination ought to have been cleared within two years from the date of joining of the first appointment. It is only then that the petitioner came to know about such examination ought to have been cleared within two years from the date of joining of the first appointment. The respondent No.2 apart from mentioning such condition in the appointment order of the petitioner, had never asked the petitioner to clear such examination nor the petitioner had any knowledge as to who conducts such examination. All along the respondent No.2 without insisting for clearance of such Hindi/Gujarati Examination, confirmed the petitioner in the year 1998, granted the petitioner his first higher pay grade with effect from 01.03.2002 and thereafter, upgraded/promoted the petitioner to the post of Principal Private Secretary, Grade- I, Class – I with effect from 21.08.2008. At the time when petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.9322 of 2003, the respondent has not taken any objection regarding non-clearance of Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination. Under such circumstances, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had, in fact, waived such condition qua the petitioner and therefore, the respondent No.2 authority is now estopped from calling upon the petitioner to clear the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination and is also estopped from taking back first higher pay grade, upgradation/ promotion and/or increments granted to the petitioner. 3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid facts, Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned communications dated 04.08.2023 and 06.10.2023 deserve to be quashed and set aside; the same being contrary to the Rules, 1970. It is submitted that the petitioner herein has been regularly granted his increments, higher grade pay, upgradation/promotion, as referred above, without insisting for the clearance of Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination. It is submitted that after considering the petitioner eligible for higher pay scale and promotion, the respondent authority is now estopped from asking the petitioner to clear the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination at the fag end of his career inasmuch as the same amounts to be deemed waiver of the said condition. It is submitted that the question of any eligibility aspect of the petitioner for holding the post of English Stenographer, at the fag end of the petitioner’s career, does not arise. It is submitted that the question of any eligibility aspect of the petitioner for holding the post of English Stenographer, at the fag end of the petitioner’s career, does not arise. The aforesaid is governed by the principles of estoppel as the services of the petitioner is obtained as English Stenographer without insisting for Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination Certificate and as and when the petitioner became due to be eligible for the pensionary benefit, the same cannot be deprived of on a condition, which has been impliedly waived by the respondent authority. 3.1 Mr. Ravani, learned advocate, submitted that except the appointment order dated 03.03.1992, the respondent authority never insisted the petitioner to clear the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination till the Office Order No.473/2021 dated 09.07.2021 came to be passed by the respondent No.2. It is submitted that the Rules, 1970 clearly provides for the grant of exemption to the employees, whether Gazatted or Non- Gazetted, upon their attaining the age of 50 years. In this context, it is submitted that once the petitioner was called upon to produce the necessary certificates showing clearance of Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 15.07.2023 to the respondent authority pointing out Rule – 4 of the Rules, 1970 whereby, the respondent authority is empowered to grant exemption to the petitioner from clearing Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination. It is submitted that the said representation was not considered in its true prospective and came to be ordered to be ‘filed’. The said order is an unreasoned order and therefore, the petitioner is deprived from knowing the reasons which weighed with the respondent authority to reject the same. The petitioner has also requested for personal hearing however, the same was not granted. Meaning thereby, the action of the respondent authority is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. In view thereof, also the impugned communications deserve to be quashed and set aside. 3.2 Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in case of Gujarat Rajya Panchayat Seva Karmachari Maha Mandal vs. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application Nos.10669/1994, 10818/1994 being filed by the employees of the Panchayat Services of Gujarat Government reported in (1999) 2 GLR 833 wherein, by order dated 25.09.1998/09.10.1998, the employees were granted such exemption as per the Resolution of the Government dated 06.04.1998, who crossed the age of 45 years. Reliance is also placed on the ratio laid down in case of Gujarat Sachivalaya and Allied Offices Stenographers Association vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1986 (1) GLR 228 more particularly, paragraph 5 of the said decision. 3.2.1 Mr. Ravani, learned advocate, submitted that in the case of the present petitioner, proviso to Rule – 4 of Rules, 1970 clearly stipulates the intention of the Legislature to exempt those who attained the age of 50 years. Under such circumstances, the petitioner herein; having crossed the age of 50 years, deserves to be exempted from clearing the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination at the fag end of his career. 3.3 Mr. Ravani, learned advocate, submitted that the Government of Gujarat in its General Administrative Department, also passed a Resolution dated 22.08.2014 whereby, it was resolved that a judgment passed in a particular case, shall be made applicable to all such similar cases. In light of the aforesaid, the case of the petitioner also stands covered by the said order and in view thereof, the impugned communication whereby, the representation of the petitioner came to be ‘filed’ deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the Rules, 1970 not only provides for granting exemption to employees who have crossed the age of 50 years but also provides that even if any increments or higher grade pay etc. are withheld, the same shall required to be released when such employees cross the age of 50 years, as if no such increment and/or higher grade pay etc. was ever withheld i.e. it does not have any bearing or relevance for the aspect of deciding the pensionary benefit. Under such circumstances, the impugned communication dated 06.10.2023 addressed by the respondent No.2 is also erroneous and required to be quashed and set aside. 3.4 Mr. Ravani, learned advocate, submitted that Rule – 3 of the Rules, 1970 also provides that the said Rules shall not apply to Government Servants (Gazetted or non-Gazetted) holding such technical or specialized posts. It is submitted that the petitioner being a Private Secretary (English Stenographer) Grade- I, also hold a technical and/or specialized post. It is fairly submitted that the post of the petitioner is also not dealing with the Rural people or with any subordinate staff who could follow only Gujarati Language. It is submitted that the petitioner being a Private Secretary (English Stenographer) Grade- I, also hold a technical and/or specialized post. It is fairly submitted that the post of the petitioner is also not dealing with the Rural people or with any subordinate staff who could follow only Gujarati Language. It is not even the case of the respondent authority that due to not having the certificate in Hindi/Gujarati Language, the services of the petitioner was not up to the mark or that the office or the petitioner had ever faced any hindrance to at, as a English Stenographer. Under such circumstances, the impugned exercise undertaken by the respondent authority is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3.5 Mr. Ravani, learned advocate, submitted that the petitioner had applied for the post of English Stenographer in view of the advertisement/notice dated 15.10.1991 wherein, the advertisement did not prescribe any condition of passing the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination. It is submitted that tough the appointment order of the petitioner dated 03.03.1992 stipulates a condition of passing Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination, it did not prescribe any time limit for the same nor it stated that failure to clear the same, would invite taking back the increments, higher grade pay, upgradation/promotion etc. Under such circumstances, the condition of passing the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination shall be deemed to have been waived by the respondent. Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of N. Prabhakaran Nair vs. State of Tamil Nadu as well as in case of Dr. S.S/Ebdul Khuddus Azami vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Writ Petition No.16309 of 2010 wherein, it was held that since the petitioner reached the age of superannuation without any complaint of any nature from any quarter and no defect of any nature has been pointed out, relating to the execution of his work, basing on the non- passing of the language test namely Tamil Part- II, the impugned order passed by the respondent was not allowed to stand and directed to grant exemption to the petitioner therein along with all consequential benefits. 3.6 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the petitioner having been selected and appointed and continued in service for a period of more than 32 years as English Stenographer Grade- I, the petitioner is not required to take dictation in Gujarati or do any typewriting work in Gujarati. The petitioner deserves to be granted exemption from passing the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination when the petitioner is left with only one month of service with the respondent department at the time when the petition is filed. It is submitted that there is no criteria fixed for passing the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination. Neither any University not any Institute was authorized to conduct or hold such examination as has been the case of direction to pass the CCC Examination by the Government Employees. The petitioner is never informed to pass the examination, which is to be conducted by any particular department and which is authorized by the respondent. Under such circumstances also, asking the petitioner to clear the Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination is without prescribing any guiding rules and regulations. In light of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the prayers, as prayed for, in the present petition be allowed. 4. Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2, placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply duly produced at page 74 to the petition, and submitted that the present petition is required to be dismissed only on the ground that the petitioner accepted the benefits flowing from the Shetty Pay Commission recommendations however, now the petitioner has sought to challenge the conditions provided therein. It is submitted that after accepting the benefits, it is now not open for the petitioner to challenge the conditions provided in the said Rules and therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed. 4.1 Mr. Naidu, learned advocate, submitted that admittedly, the petitioner herein was initially appointed as Stenographer, Grade- I vide Office Order No.40/1992, dated 03.03.1992, which is duly produced at Annexure – A to the petition. Placing reliance on the same, it is submitted that as per the Clause – 5 of the said appointment order, it was specifically provided that each candidate is required to pass the requisite examination in Hindi and Gujarati Languages, as the case may be, within the prescribed time limit. The said terms were accepted by the petitioner by joining the services. The said terms were accepted by the petitioner by joining the services. It is submitted that the same is a general condition of appointment and a requirement for all the Stenographers. 4.2 Mr. Naidu, learned advocate, submitted that huge emphasis has been laid in regard to the higher pay-grade which has been extended to the petitioner however, the same was extended as per the order passed in Special Civil Application no.9322 of 2003. It is submitted that the benefit of Shetty Pay Commission was extended to the petitioner for which, Office Order No.211/2022 was specifically issued. In the said order, it has been provided that for any Stenographer who has not cleared the mandatory Hindi and/or Gujarati Language Examination (higher or lower level as may be applicable), as the case may be, as per the relevant Government Resolutions, shall be required to cleared the said examination within a period of two years from the date of the said order or the first available opportunity of the examination that may be conducted. It is submitted that as the per the said Office Order, even the benefits of Shetty Pay Commission was extended to the petitioner, which was accepted by the petitioner, admittedly, the said condition was reiteration of the original condition which was also accepted by the petitioner. It cannot be the case whereby the benefits flowing from a specific order are accepted and after taking the benefits, one condition is objected. It is submitted that a specific letter was also addressed to the petitioner asking the petitioner to submit the certificate of Language Examination however, the same was not submitted by the petitioner and certain documents sought by the petitioner, which were provided by the respondent No.2. 4.3 Mr. Naidu, learned advocate, submitted that broadly the Rules of 1970 were sought and which were provided to the petitioner herein. It is submitted that Rule 4 of the Rules, 1970 provides for exemption with regard to passing of the Language Examination for employees who have completed 50 years of age on the ‘appointed date’. However, conveniently, the definition of appointed date which is provided under Rule 3(b), has been mentioned that ‘appointed date’ means the date on which these Rules shall come into force’ i.e. 14.08.1970. However, conveniently, the definition of appointed date which is provided under Rule 3(b), has been mentioned that ‘appointed date’ means the date on which these Rules shall come into force’ i.e. 14.08.1970. Thus, the interpretation of the same can be whereby, exclusion would be available to the persons who have completed 50 years of age on bringing the said Rules into effect which was 14.08.1970 and hence, the said exclusion would not cover the case of the petitioner. 4.4 Mr. Naidu, learned advocate, submitted that the emphasis has also been laid in cases wherein “mother tongue is not Gujarati or whose mother tongue is Gujarati but, who may have received his secondary education in English or any medium other than Gujarati and has acquired the knowledge of Gujarati by virtue of passing the Matriculation or SSC Examination recognized by the Government as equivalent to that examination or any higher examination with Gujarati as one of the subjects, shall not be required to pass lower standard examination or higher standard examination in Gujarati or both, as the case may be, shall not be applicable to the petitioner as the clause specifically provides that Matriculation or SSC with Gujarati as one of the subjects would be required, in the facts of the matter, is not the case and hence also, the said exclusion provision which has been emphatically relied upon by the petitioner, would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. 4.5 Mr. Naidu, learned advocate, submitted that the Rules which are of 10.04.2017, are mandatory and the Rules specifically covers and provides the aspect of passing of the said Language Examination and hence, only the same was intimated and informed to the petitioner herein. In the present petition, what is under challenge is the communication/letter asking the petitioner to provide certificate of Language Examination and the Rules which are binding to the petitioner. Thus, on the said ground alone, the present petition is required to be dismissed. It is submitted that the promotion order dated 24.03.2022 specifically provides that the promotee shall be required to pass the examination within two years or at the first available opportunity. In-spite of which, the petitioner has not appeared in the examination which is taken time and again at Gujarat Vidhyapith and other institutions. It is submitted that the promotion order dated 24.03.2022 specifically provides that the promotee shall be required to pass the examination within two years or at the first available opportunity. In-spite of which, the petitioner has not appeared in the examination which is taken time and again at Gujarat Vidhyapith and other institutions. It is also submitted that after the representation made by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 had informed the petitioner to personally meet in respect of any grievance whatsoever. However, in- spite of coming forward for the same, the petition came to be preferred making wrongful assertion that the petitioner was never called upon by the respondent No.2 which is incorrect and denied by the respondent. It is submitted that in the present petition, it has been asserted and averted that the communication dated 06.10.2023 provided that the pension would not be sanctioned and the benefits as extended of increment, higher grade etc. to the petitioner, shall be required to be taken back. To that, it is submitted that in-spite of the said factum in complete knowledge of the petitioner herein, the petitioner has preferred a Civil Application whereby, it has been claimed as if there is a new cause of action and contrary to the Pension Rules and the pension would be stopped, whereas, the same was already a subject matter of the main petition which is already pending and hence, the same is also incorrect and improper on part of the petitioner while preferring the said Civil Application. 4.6 Mr. Naidu, learned advocate, submitted that the petitioner cannot be wrongfully benefited if he is not eligible for certain specific benefits. The said ratio would be covered the present case as in the present case, the petitioner was supposed to clear the examination, though was aware of the said fact, has preferred not to clear the said examination and now, at the fag end of his service, is trying to make out a case to get exemption/exclusion from undertaking the said examination which is completely contrary to the Rules and therefore, the relief, as prayed for, is required to be denied. It is submitted that the aforesaid is a general policy for all the Stenographers who are appointed and no exclusion is made qua the same. It is submitted that the aforesaid is a general policy for all the Stenographers who are appointed and no exclusion is made qua the same. The relief, as prayed for, if hypothetically is even granted then the same would not only be dehors the Rules but, will also be contrary to the prevalent practice and procedure as adopted for recruitment of Stenographers. That, passing of the examination is mandatory requirement for the said post and hence, no relief as prayed for be granted. Analysis:- 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, following emerge: 5.1 The petitioner herein came to be appointed as a English Stenographer, Grade- I, vide Order No.40/1992 dated 03.03.1992 pursuant to the advertisement bearing Notice No.35/1991 dated 15.10.1991 which is duly produced at page 36, Annexure- C to the petition. The said appointment order being Office Order No.40/1992 is duly produced at page 37 wherein, Clause - 5 reads as under: “5. Each of the candidates will be required to pass the requisite examinations in Hindi and Gujarati languages, within the prescribed time.” The aforesaid clause provides that the petitioner was required to pass the requisite examinations in Hindi and Gujarati languages, within prescribed time. The said terms were accepted by the petitioner at the time of joining of service. It is a general condition of appointment and requirement for all the Stenographers. 5.2 At the time when the petitioner was appointed on 03.03.1992, the Rules of 1970, dated 14.08.1970 were in force. The said Rules provides for passing of Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination. The said Rules also provides for exemption qua the Gazetted Officers and Non-Gazetted Government Servants to pass Higher Standard Examination in Gujarati or Lower Standard Examination in Gujarati or both; as the case may be, continuous post held by them if, they completed 50 years of age on the ‘appointed date’, withheld increments if any, such employee shall be released on the appointed date. The petitioner herein relied on Rule 4 of the said Rules, 1970 and submitted that the petitioner is governed by the exclusion clause of the Rules, 1970 which provides for exclusion/exemption for employees who are 50 years of age. The petitioner herein relied on Rule 4 of the said Rules, 1970 and submitted that the petitioner is governed by the exclusion clause of the Rules, 1970 which provides for exclusion/exemption for employees who are 50 years of age. In view of the aforesaid, it is apposite to refer to relevant clause of Rule 3(b) and Rule 4 of the Rules, 1970, duly produced at page 53 to the petition, which reads thus: “3(b) “Appointed date” means the date on which these rules shall come into force; 4. (a) All Gazetted Officers referred to in rule 3 and All India Service Officers shall be required to pass (i) Lower Standard Examination, within the six months from the date of joining their first appointment or from the appointed date, whichever is later and (ii) Higher Standard Examination in Gujarati within two years from, the date of joining their first appointment or from the appointed date, whichever is later; (b) All non-Gazetted Government servants (referred to in rule 3) who are required to do noting and drafting in Gujarati shall be required to pass (i) Lower Standard Examination within the six months from the date of joining their fist appointment or from the appointed date, whichever is later and (ii) Higher Standard Examination in Gujarati within two years from the date of joining their first appointment or from the appointed date, whichever is later. For the purposes of this rule, the categories of Government servants (Class III) who are required to pass the Higher Standard Examination in Gujarati shall be the same as those categories which are required to pass Higher Standard Examination in Hindi; (c) All non-Gazetted Government servants except those belonging to the categories referred to in clause (b) of rule 4 who are not required to do noting and drafting in Gujarati shall be required to pass Lower Standard Examination within one year from the date of joining their first appointment or from the appointed date; whichever is later. For the purposes of this rule the categories of non-Gazetted Government servants who are required to pass only Lower Standard Examination in Gujarati shall be the same as those categories which are required to pass the Lower Standard Examination in Hindi. For the purposes of this rule the categories of non-Gazetted Government servants who are required to pass only Lower Standard Examination in Gujarati shall be the same as those categories which are required to pass the Lower Standard Examination in Hindi. In case Government servants of this category get promotion to Higher posts for which they are required to pass the Higher Standard Examination, they shall have to pass that examination within two years from the date of promotion. Note.- Those Gazetted and non-Gazetted Government Servants, who are required to pass both the examinations (viz. Lower Standard Examination and Higher Standard Examination) in Gujarati must have first passed Lower Standard Examination in Gujarati in order to be eligible for appearing at the Higher Standard Examination in Gujarati. Provided that Gazetted Government servants specified in cause (a) of rule 4 and non-Gazetted Government Servants specified in clause (b) of rule 4 of the former States of Bombay, Hyderabad, Kutch, Madhya Pradesh and Saurashtra who were required to pass the regional examination in Gujarati, under the respective rules, if any, but have not passed that examination shall be required to pass only Higher Standard Examination in Gujarati within a period of one year from the date of the first examination held on or after the appointed date. Provided further that non-Gazetted Government Servants specified in clause (c) of rule 4 of the forner States of Bombay, Hyderabad, Kutch, Madhya Pradesh and Saurashtra, who were required to pass the regional examination in Gujarati under the respective, rules, if any, but have not passed that examination shall be required to pass the Lower Standard Examination in Gujarati within a period of one year from the date of first examination held on or after the appointed date. Provided further that if a Gazetted Government Servant or a non- Gazetted Government Servant whose mother-tongue is not Gujarati or whose mother-tongue is Gujarati but who may have received his secondary education in English or any medium other than Gujarati and has acquired the knowledge of Gujarati by virtue of his passing the Matriculation or S.S.C. Examination recognised by Government as equivalent to that examination or any higher examination, with Gujarati as one of the subjects, shall not be required to pass Lower Standard Examination in Gujarati or Higher Standard Examination in Gujarati or both, as the case may be. Withheld increments, if any, of such employees shall be released from the appointed date. Provided further that Gazetted Officers and non-Gazetted Government Servants shall not be required to pass Higher Standard Examination in Gujarati or Lower Standard Examination in Gujarati or both, as the case may be, for continuance in the post held by them if they have completed 50 years of age on the appointed date. Withheld increments, if any, of such employees shall be released from the appointed date.” 5.3 The Non-Judicial Officers and Staff of the Courts (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017, (for short ‘the Rules, 2017) came into effect from 10.04.2017. The said Rules, 2017 apply to all the Non-Judicial Officers and Staff members belonging to Class- I, Class- II, Class – III and Class – IV, service on establishment of the District Courts of the State, City Courts at Ahmedabad and Family Courts in the State of Gujarat. Rule – 23 of the said Rules, 2017 provides that a member of staff shall be required to pass an examination in Hindi or Gujarati or both in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Government from time to time. Rule 23 of the Rules, 2017 reads thus: “23. HINDI / GUJARATI EXAMINATION: A member of the staff shall be required to pass an examination in Hindi or Gujarati or both in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Government from time to time in this behalf.” 6. In absence of extension of higher pay grade to the petitioner, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.9322 of 2003 wherein, admittedly it was recommended that the higher pay scale should be extended to the petitioner on completion of 9 years of service. The petitioner herein was thereafter extended the benefit of Shetty Pay Commission for which, Officer Order No.211 of 2022 specifically issued. The said order also provided that for any Stenographer who has not cleared the mandatory Hindi/English Language Examination (Higher or Lower level, as may be applicable), as the case may be, as per the relevant Government Resolutions, shall be required to clear the said examination within a period of two years from the date of the said order or on the first available opportunity of the examination that may be conducted, failing which, the concerned Stenographers shall be reverted to his/her previous cadre, duly produced at page 97 to the petition. It is further clarified that the period stipulated for clearing these examinations, shall not be extended further. 6.1 The benefit of Shetty Pay Commission was accepted by the petitioner without any objection in view thereof, admittedly, the said condition which was reiteration of the original condition also came to be accepted by the petitioner. Thereafter, by communication dated 12.06.2023, the petitioner was specifically informed in writing to submit the Certificate of Language Examination however, the same was not submitted by the petitioner and on the even date, certain documents were sought for by the petitioner, which were also provided by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner. 7. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.2 on 15.07.2023 duly produced at page 64 to the petition whereby, it was represented that the petitioner is entitled to exemption under the said Rules of 1970 more particularly, Rule – 4 as referred above. The said Rule provides for exemption for those who have completed 50 years of age on the “appointed date”. ‘Appointed date’ as defined in Rule 3(b) meaning thereby the date on which these rules shall come into force i.e. 14.08.1970. 8. At this stage, it is apposite to deal with the decisions relied upon by Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. 8.1 In case of Gujarat Rajya Panchayat Seva Karmachari Maha Mandal vs. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application Nos.10669/1994, 10818/1994 reported in (1999) 2 GLR 833, the respondents failed to hold the departmental examinations for 18 years. The employees more than 45 years of age were prevented from appearing in the examination and were granted promotions as well as confirmations. The respondent – State Government agreed that those employees who completed 45 years of age as on 17.09.1994 which was the cut-off date, will be granted exemption according to the interim order passed by the Court. However, after the departmental examination for those cadres are held, then they are required to appear in and pass therein and the benefits shall be allowed only after getting an undertaking to the effect that in case they fail to do so, the benefits so extended would be withdrawn. However, after the departmental examination for those cadres are held, then they are required to appear in and pass therein and the benefits shall be allowed only after getting an undertaking to the effect that in case they fail to do so, the benefits so extended would be withdrawn. It was held that once the Government fixed the cut-off date of 14.09.1994 and granted exemption to the employees who attained the age of 45 years on the said date, the action of again asking the employees to appear at the examination to be held thereafter, was unsustainable. The Government conferred the right of exemption to the employees who attained the age of 45 years on 14.09.1994, but for the service benefits, viz., promotion as well as higher pay-scales, wanted the employees to clear the examination. Under such circumstances, it was held that there is no use of granting exemption to the employees. An employee who attained the age of 45 years on 14.09.1994, is bound to grow older and older in the subsequent years and therefore, when the Government decides to fix 45 years as age-limit for granting exemption, it cannot change its stand for the same employees and insist for appearing in the subsequent examinations. It was further held that the persons belonging to super Panchayat service, who have passed any examinations which are held after 14.09.1994, will not be entitled to claim seniority and/or other benefits like promotion as well as higher pay-scales qua the person of super Panchayat Service who attained the age of 45 years on 14.09.1994 and thus, have been exempted from appearing in the departmental examinations. The aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the facts of the present case, the examination- in-question is held from time to time and the similarly placed persons have Certificate as issued from time to time. However, the petitioner has not appeared in the examination and in view thereof, the respondent is constrained to take steps against the petitioner in accordance with law. 8.2 In case of Gujarat Sachivalaya and Allied Offices Stenographers Association vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1986 (1) GLR 228 , it was held that the petitioners are entitled to continue in the cadre of English Stenographer on the conditions on which they were recruited. 8.2 In case of Gujarat Sachivalaya and Allied Offices Stenographers Association vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1986 (1) GLR 228 , it was held that the petitioners are entitled to continue in the cadre of English Stenographer on the conditions on which they were recruited. There was no condition of taking training in Gujarati Stenography and therefore, it was held that they could not take training in Gujarati Stenography. In the facts of the present case, the appointment order dated 03.03.1992 clearly imposes the condition of passing the Gujarati/Hindi Language Examination and as also the Recruitment Rules, 1970 and Rules, 2017 provide for the same. 8.3 In case of Dr. S.S/Ebdul Khuddus Azami vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Writ Petition No.16309 of 2010, dated 29.03.2011, the petitioner on acquiring Bachelor Degree in Unani Medicine and Surgery, selected to the post of Assistant Medical Officer by TNPSC and by order dated 17.03.1996 of the Director of Indian Medicine, Homeopathy, the petitioner joined the said department, rendered the service of 24 years without earning any promotion and was due to retire on 31.05.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Government after considering the request of the petitioner for relaxation of the relevant rules regarding passing ‘Tamil’ as Second Language Test, has rejected the same and consequently, removed the petitioner from service as per Rule 12A of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. The said order passed by the State Government was subject matter of challenge by way of petition before the Madras High Court wherein, it was held that in absence of any serious complaints from any of the quarters, rejection of the request of the petitioner for relaxation of Rule 12A of the General Rules, was against the order of the interim stay granted by the Tribunal and that, the order of removal, a major penalty, could not be inflicted to achieve the object of discharging him from the service. Consequently, it was directed that the petitioner was allowed to retire from service by granting relaxation of the Rules, with consequential service and monetary benefits, including retiral benefits and pension with effect from the date of attaining the age of superannuation holding that the said penalty of removal was disproportionate. Consequently, it was directed that the petitioner was allowed to retire from service by granting relaxation of the Rules, with consequential service and monetary benefits, including retiral benefits and pension with effect from the date of attaining the age of superannuation holding that the said penalty of removal was disproportionate. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the communication dated 04.08.2023 whereby, the Registrar of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, has communicated to the petitioner that the petitioner’s representation for exemption from passing the examination-in-question was declined. By further communication dated 06.10.2023, it was communicated that in absence of Hindi/Gujarati Language Examination certificate placed on record before the competent authority, the respondent would be compelled to take action against the petitioner as per rules related to the promotion, increments and higher grade pay benefits given to the petitioner. In addition, the process of petitioner’s pension case would also be delayed. In view thereof, the reliance placed by Mr. Ravani, learned advocate on the order passed by the Madras High Court, is not applicable wherein, no punishment is awarded to the petitioner. 9. Considering the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner’s appointment was on 03.03.1992 and at that time, the said Rules, 1970 were in force. The appointment letter of the petitioner states that the petitioner was required to pass the Hindi and/or Gujarati Language examination and the petitioner has accepted the same. 10. It appears that in light of the aforesaid, the petitioner’s representation dated 15.07.2023 seeking exemption under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1970, came to be rejected by the impugned communication dated 04.08.2023 duly produced at page 34, Annexure – A, wherein, it is stated that, ‘in the petitioner’s first appointment order as well as in the order of promotion, it is mentioned that the petitioner was given appointment/promotion subject to the condition of passing prescribed examination of Hindi/Gujarati language. Moreover, as the circulars/authorities submitted by the petitioner are not applicable in case of the petitioner and the order dated 03.08.2023 has been passed by the Ld. Principal Judge to ‘file’ the petitioner’s representation dated 15.07.2023. The said communication dated 04.08.2023 reads thus: (true translation) “Outward No. 1147/2023 Dt. 04.08.2023 To, Mr. J. Venketramanan, English Stenographer, Grade-1 (Class-1) Civil Civil Court, Bhadra, Ahmedabad. Principal Judge to ‘file’ the petitioner’s representation dated 15.07.2023. The said communication dated 04.08.2023 reads thus: (true translation) “Outward No. 1147/2023 Dt. 04.08.2023 To, Mr. J. Venketramanan, English Stenographer, Grade-1 (Class-1) Civil Civil Court, Bhadra, Ahmedabad. Sub:- Regarding your representation dated 15.07.2023 to pass order granting exemption from passing Hindi/Gujarati examination. Apropos to the subject cited above, I am directed by the Ld. Principal Judge to inform you that in your first appointment order as well as in the order of promotion, it is mentioned that you were given appointment/promotion subject to the condition of passing prescribed examination of Hindi/Gujarati language. Moreover, as the circulars/authorities submitted by you are not applicable in your case, order dated 03.08.2023 has been passed by the Ld. Principal Judge to file your application/representation dated 15.07.2023. The same may be known. Sd/- Hardik S. Desai Registrar” 10.1. By a further communication dated 06.10.2023 duly produced at page 35, Annexure – B, it is informed to the petitioner that, ‘as per rules and as per the order passed by the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner to submit the certificates of passing prescribed examination of Gujarati/Hindi language however, the petitioner has not submitted any certificate to the office till date in this regard. Thus, as no entry of passing prescribed language examination is found in petitioner’s Service Book, the process of granting pension to the petitioner could not be commenced. Thus, it is requested to submit the required certificates immediately by return post. Otherwise, the respondent to take action as per rules related to the promotion, increments and higher grade pay benefits given to the petitioner. In addition, the process of petitioner’s pension case would also be delayed’. The said communication dated 06.10.2023 reads thus: (true translation) “Outward No. AC/502/2023 Dt. 06.10.2023 To, Mr. J. Venketramanan, Stenographer, Grade-1, Civil Civil and Sessions Court, Bhadra, Ahmedabad. Subject:- To submit necessary certificates of passing prescribed language examination. Reference: (1) Outward No. 888/2023, dated 12/06/2023. (2) Your application dated 24/07/2023 to receive pension. Sir, With regard to the subject and reference cited above, I am directed to state that you were informed as per rules and as per the order passed by the Departmental Promotion Committee to submit the certificates of passing prescribed examination of Gujarati and Hindi language. You have not submitted any certificate to this office till date in this regard. Sir, With regard to the subject and reference cited above, I am directed to state that you were informed as per rules and as per the order passed by the Departmental Promotion Committee to submit the certificates of passing prescribed examination of Gujarati and Hindi language. You have not submitted any certificate to this office till date in this regard. Thus, as no entry of passing prescribed language examination is found in your Service Book, process of granting pension to you could not be commenced. Thus, it is requested to submit the required certificates immediately by return post. Otherwise, I would be forced to take action as per rules related to the promotion, increments and higher grade pay benefits given to you. In addition, the process of your pension case would also be delayed. The same may be known, Sd/- Registrar City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.” 11. In light of the aforesaid communications, in the opinion of this Court, it is undisputed that the petitioner has not produced the certificate in Hindi and/or Gujarati Language Examination as required under the Rules, 1970 as well as Rules, 2017. The petitioner was informed that the petitioner should procure the certificate; which is mandatory. The aforesaid is borne out from page 97 of the petition. The petitioner in-spite of the aforesaid communication dated 24.03.2022 thought it fit not to appear in the said Hindi and/or Gujarati Language Examination and have the certificate. 12. From the aforesaid, it emerges that the benefit of exemption under Rule 4 of the Rules 1970 with regard to passing of Language examination for employees, who have completed 50 years of age on the ‘appointed date’, is also not available to the petitioner in light of Rule 3(b) of the Rules, 1970 which defines the ‘appointed date’ as the date on which the Rules, 1970 came into force i.e. 14.08.1970. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the said exemption having been denied by communication dated 04.08.2023, it was informed that the representation of the petitioner came to be ‘filed’ on 03.08.2023. Further, on 06.10.2023 also the petitioner was once again informed that appropriate steps would be taken against the petitioner herein in absence of such certificate but, the petitioner has failed to do so. 14. Further, on 06.10.2023 also the petitioner was once again informed that appropriate steps would be taken against the petitioner herein in absence of such certificate but, the petitioner has failed to do so. 14. Further, in the promotion order dated 24.03.2022, it is specifically provided that the promotee shall be required to pass Hindi/Gujarati Examination within two years or at the first available opportunity. In-spite of the aforesaid, the petitioner has not appeared in the examination which is taken time and again at Gujarat Vidhyapith and other institutions. When the petitioner made representation, the respondent No.2 had informed the petitioner to personally meet in respect of any grievance whatsoever, however, the petitioner chose to file present petition with an assertion that the petitioner was never called upon by the respondent No.2. 15. The prayer 9(e) with respect to declaration that the respondent authority has no right to take back the increments, higher-grade, up-gradation/promotion already granted to the petitioner or to be kept in abeyance, is pre-matured. 16. For the foregoing reasons, no case is made out to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is clarified that if the respondent authority is inclined to take any action against the petitioner, the same be in accordance with Rules and Regulations and in accordance with law. 17. Accordingly, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.