ORDER : Nikhil S. Kariel, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Niyati Chauhan on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Pathak on behalf of respondent- State. 2. By way of the present petition the petitioner has prayed for the following prayers: A. That the Hon'ble may be pleased to admit and allow this petition; B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the orders dated 16.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 and order dated 19.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 whereby, the petitioner was terminated from his services and count the services of the petitioner continuous in nature; C. Pending admission hearing and final disposal of captioned matter the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the implementation and execution of the orders dated 16.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 and order dated 19.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 whereby, the petitioner was terminated from his services and count the services of the petitioner continuous in nature; D. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to extend and/or give relaxation to the petitioner herein for six months or till the University conducts the "CCC Government Exam for Employee" for passing the said Examination; E. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 18.10.2022 made by the petitioner at the earliest; F. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain the seniority of the petitioner in the gradation list and keep one post vacant during the promotion process: G. YOUR Lordships may grant such other and further relief as deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had joined the services of the respondent – Forest Department as a Beatguard on 02.09.2013 on contractual / fixed pay basis for five years. It would appear that after completion of five years of service satisfactorily, services of the petitioner were confirmed/ regularized on 02.09.2018. It would appear that during the interregnum, the State Government had passed Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 inter alia requiring employees to clear the CCC examination within a period of two years for regularization of services. It would appear that after completion of five years of service satisfactorily, services of the petitioner were confirmed/ regularized on 02.09.2018. It would appear that during the interregnum, the State Government had passed Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 inter alia requiring employees to clear the CCC examination within a period of two years for regularization of services. It would appear that the petitioner had applied to the SPIPA for appearing in the examination and whereas it would appear that the case of the petitioner had been recommended by his superior officer i.e Range Forest Officer who had written to the SPIPA to give priority to the petitioner since he had to pass the examination within a stipulated time period. It would appear that while the examinations could not be conduced at the relevant point of time, the petitioner, had appeared in an examination conducted in the month of July 2020 and had not cleared the theory exam. It would appear that the petitioner had again applied for appearing in the examination and vide result declared on 05.09.2020, the petitioner had cleared the theory exam also. It would appear that in the interregnum, on account of the petitioner not passing the CCC examination within the stipulated time period, services of the petitioner were terminated vide an order dated 16.09.2020 passed by Deputy Conservator of Forest, Forest Range, Surat based upon which order dated 19.09.2020 had been passed by the Range Forest Officer, Mandvi relieving the petitioner from service. It would appear that later on, upon the petitioner passing the CCC examination on 31.12.2020, the petitioner had been reinstated in service, and whereas, the grievance being raised is that though the petitioner had been reinstated in service vide an order 04.01.2021 and whereas, the grievance being raised is that though the petitioner has been reinstated in services, the petitioner is being treated as a fresh entrant in service with effect from the said date. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned Advocate Ms. Chauhan for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned Advocate Ms. Chauhan for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Pathak on behalf of respondent- State, it would appear to this Court that while the learned Advocate for the would be emphasizing on the fact that the examinations could not be conducted at the relevant point of time on account of COVID-19 pandemic and whereas, the petitioner should not have been prejudiced on account of the same, yet to this Court it would appear that the issue raised in the present petition would also be covered by decision of Hon’ble Division Bench dated 20.07.2021 on Letters Patent Appeal No. 376 of 2021. Paragraph No. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit: “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. 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 regularized 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 regularization of such employee. 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 regularized 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 regularization to clear CCC/CCC+ examination which is a per-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 regularization 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. 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. 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 here- in-above.” 5. Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Division Bench, it would appear that while the services of the petitioner, more particularly, with regard to passing of CCC examinations, had been regulated vide Government Resolution dated dated 04.06.2019, which inter alia was of the nature of amending the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment ( General) Rules, 1967 and wheres the said resolution /the said Rule inter alia envisaged that the candidate would be required to pass the CCC examination within a period of two years from the date when the contractual /fix pay period was over. Hon’ble Division Bench has observed that Government Resolution dated 04.06.2009 had been substituted by the State vide Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 and whereas, the later resolution requiring the candidate to pass CCC / CCC+ examination within two years from the date of their regular appointment failing which the services of the employee would be terminated. Hon’ble Division Bench has observed that the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 could not be made applicable retrospectively and whereas, the same could be considered being applicable prospectively, i.e from the date of the said resolution. Hon’ble Division Bench has observed that the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 could not be made applicable retrospectively and whereas, the same could be considered being applicable prospectively, i.e from the date of the said resolution. It would appear in this regard that while the petitioner had been confirmed in service on 02.09.2018, the petitioner had cleared the CCC examination on 31.12.2020, that is a period of three months later than the period during which he was required to pass the examination. Basis the record, it would appear to this Court that the period of three months, has been satisfactorily explained since it appears that the said period, coincides with the period during which the entire Country was hit by the COVID -19 Pandemic and whereas, while it would appear that the petitioner had applied and the application of the petitioner had been recommended by his RFO, more particularly requesting the SPIPA to give priority to the petitioner as he was required to pass examination within the requisite time, yet, at the relevant point of time examination had not been taken. It would appear that the first time, the examination had been held was in the year July 2020 and while the petitioner had cleared the practical examination he did not clear the theory examination which he had cleared on 31.12.2020. It would thus appear that while the petitioner had cleared the CCC examination three months after the requisite period yet unlike normal cases, an exception would have to be made since the period in question when the examination had not been conducted, coincided with the COVID 19 pandemic. The period of two years for passing starting from the date of confirmation i.e on 18.09.2018 and the pandemic hitting the country in March 2019 and the examination not being taken inspite of the petitioner applying would be reasonable consideration for this Court to direct the State to treat the petitioner as having passed the CCC examination within the stipulated time. 7. Having regard to the observations hereinabove, to this Court it would appear that the following directions would meet with the ends of justice: [1] The respondents are directed to treat the services of the petitioner as a regular employee, appointed with effect from 02.09.2013 on contractual/fixed term basis and confirmed vide order dated 02.09.2018, without any reference to the orders of termination dated 16.09.2020 and 19.09.2020. [2] The services of the petitioner shall be treated as continuous services, without any reference to the above impugned orders. [3] All consequential benefits flowing from the above direction to be granted to the petitioner including seniority benefits and whereas insofar as the financial benefits is concerned, the same shall be treated as notional. [4] The above exercise shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed.