Gujarat High Court
Amrutaben Dahyabhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 18 July, 2017
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.N. Karia
C/LPA/1459/2016 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1459 of 2016
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20106 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12954 of 2016
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1459 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6977 of 2017
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1459 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH sd/
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA sd/
=========================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see NO
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as NO
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=============================================
AMRUTABEN DAHYABHAI PARMAR....Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. DHAWAN VYAS ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No.
1 5
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 18/07/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 04:30:35 IST 2017 C/LPA/1459/2016 JUDGMENT 1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 1.12.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.20106 of 2016, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition preferred by the appellant herein, original petitioner has preferred present Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2.0. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under:
2.1. That the applications were invited by giving public advertisement in local newspaper for appointment on the post of Middaymeal, Supervisor on contractual basis for a fix period of 11 months and on a fixed pay of Rs.15,000/ per month. That the petitioner applied for the same pursuant to the said advertisement. She was appointed on 28.01.2016 for a period of 11 months in a fixed pay of Rs.15,000/. As period of 11 months was to come to an end in the month of December 2016, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.20106 of 2016 seeking continuation of her appointment on the ground that unless regularly appointed candidates fill up the sanctioned or otherwise created posts, the adhoc cannot be replaced by adhoc and therefore, the petitioner preferred aforesaid Special Civil Application and sought for the following reliefs:
"(A) Direct the respondent authorities not to terminate the services of the petitioner from the post of MDM, Supervisor, till the regularly selected candidates are appointed by the respondent authorities, and (B) Further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to continue the services of the petitioner as adhoc MDM, Supervisor till all the sanctioned posts are filled in through regular process of selection, and (C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 04:30:35 IST 2017 C/LPA/1459/2016 JUDGMENT Honourable Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from terminating the services of the petitioner, and (D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased restrain the respondent authortiies from initiating fresh process of selection of adhoc MDM, Supervisor on contractual basis, and"
3.0. It was the case on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge and even before this Court that it was a policy decision taken by the authority on 24.12.2013 that total 310 posts of Midday meal Supervisors, 155 posts of Deputy Mamlatdar and 155 posts of Education Inspector/ Supervisor shall need to be filled in on adhoc and on contractual basis for a period of 11 months, till these posts are filled in by regularly selected employees on the post of Deputy Mamlatdar and Education Inspector / Supervisor. Therefore, relying upon the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.8588 of 2015 and other allied matters wherein it was held in case of lecturers and Assistant Professors that those appointed on adhoc basis cannot be replaced by adhoc employees, it was requested to direct the respondent to continue the petitioner.
3.1. Considering the fact that applications were invited for the appointment on contractual basis for a period of 11 months, pursuant to which petitioner applied and thereafter petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis for a period of 11 months on a fixed salary of Rs.15000/, observing that thereafter the petitioner had no right to continue on the post and / or cannot as a matter of right pray to continue her, by impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid petition.
4.0. Shri Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant has reiterated all Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 04:30:35 IST 2017 C/LPA/1459/2016 JUDGMENT the submissions which were made before the learned Single Judge.
5.0. Having heard Shri learned advocate for the appellant herein original petitioner and considering the impugned order and more particularly, considering the fact that petitioner applied for appointment on the contractual post for a period of 11 months and on fixed salary of Rs.15000/ per month and therefore, after completion of the contractual period, the petitioner had no right to pray to continue her, it cannot be said that learned Single Judge has committed any error in dismissing the petition. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appointment of the petitioner on contractual post, cannot be equated with the appointment on ad hoc basis and employee appointed on temporary post. It is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that even applications were invited by giving public advertisement for appointment on contractual basis for 11 months only and pursuant to which, petitioner applied for the appointment on contractual basis for a period of 11 months. Therefore, on completion of the contractual period, the petitioner had no right to continue on the post. Learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition.
6.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal fail and same deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated forthwith.
6.1. In view of the dismissal of Letters Patent, Civil Application Nos.12954 of 2016 and 6977 of 2017 stand dismissed. 7.0. At this stage, Shri Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant has requested to continue the interim relief granted earlier. However, Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 04:30:35 IST 2017 C/LPA/1459/2016 JUDGMENT considering the fact that contractual period had already expired as back as in the month of December 2016 and as observed herein above, the petitioner has no right to continue, the prayer of the petitioner to continue interim relief, is hereby rejected.
sd/ (M.R. SHAH, J.) sd/ (B.N. KARIA, J.) Kaushik Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 04:30:35 IST 2017