Gujarat High Court
Patel Amitkumar Amrutbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 January, 2020
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20027 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 482 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20028 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20029 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20453 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20454 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20455 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20457 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20459 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
PATEL AMITKUMAR AMRUTBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
Page 1 of 19
Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020
C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT
MR KB PUJARA(680) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 24/01/2020
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the Kheda District Panchayat waive service of notice of Rule.
2. In these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, show cause notices issued by the District Panchayat, Kheda dated 12.12.2018 are challenged.
3. Facts in brief are as under: (Facts from Special Civil Application No. 20027 of 2018 are taken for the sake of convenience) 3.1 The petitioners pursuant to an advertisement dated 21.12.2009 issued by the respondent no. 3 inviting applications for the post of Vidya Sahayaks/Primary Teachers applied on 01.01.2010 along with original certificates and marksheets. The petitioner received a due acknowledgement on submission of mark sheets on 01.01.2010. A call letter dated 20.03.2010 was issued for an oral interview on 30.03.2010. The call for the interview was for the purpose of verification of documents.
Page 2 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT 3.2 On 30.03.2010, the petitioner was issued call letter for selection of school for posting on 12.04.2010. The letter indicated that since the petitioner is eligible for appointment on merit for the post of Vidya Sahayak, he must remain present on 12.04.2010 for allotment of school. On the school being alloted, the petitioner joined duties on the same day i.e. 12.04.2010 at Mahelaj Kanya Primary School, Matar. He was subsequently transferred to another school and then absorbed in that school in the upper primary Section. By order dated 07.08.2015, the petitioner was placed in the regular pay scale with effect from 01.11.2013.
3.3 It is the case of the petitioner that after approximately 8 years and 8 months of service, the impugned show cause notice dated 12.12.2018 was issued by which the case of the Panchayat was that there was an error in calculating placement of the petitioner in the merit list. The contents of the notice would be dealt with hereinafter as separate notices have been issued to each of the petitioners before this Court. Notices of even date in each of the petition apart from the facts individually stated make out a case that in accordance with the conditions of appointment especially clause VI thereof, though it was open for the panchayat to terminate the service without notice, it was in the interest of justice that such a notice was being issued to the petitioner. It is these notices which are impugned in the petitions.
3.4 At this stage it would be relevant to read with the notices in each case. In Special Civil Application No. 20027 of 2018, the petitioner has been issued show cause notice by Page 3 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT stating that the petitioner was included in the science stream merit list and was placed at Sr. No. 26. The case of the panchayat was that the merit has to be computed in accordance with the communication of the Education Department dated 15.01.2010. However, in the case of the petitioner what was considered was the petitioner's PTC marks as 894 instead of 867 and on such assessment of marks the percentage of PTC would come to 74.73% and 60% thereof would come to 45.23%. It is the case of the panchayat that the total merit for standard 12 which was 29.50 and PTC which came to 45.23 would be 74.73 which will be less than the minimum of the open category at 75.76 and therefore the petitioner could not be included in the merit list.
3.5 In the case of Special Civil Application No. 20028 of 2018, the case of the panchayat is that the petitioner had not at all applied for the post in question and there is no record in the register to show that the petitioner had in fact applied. The second ground was that the petitioner therein had claimed appointment in physically handicapped category without such application being made for such category he was appointed.
3.6 In the case of petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 20029 of 2018 also, it was the case of the panchayat that the petitioner had not applied at all and there was no record in the register despite which he found place on the merit list. So is the case as far as petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 20453, 20454, 20455, 20457 and 20459 wherein the case of the panchayat is that the names of the petitioners did not figure either in the merit list or the wait list. The additional Page 4 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT aspect in the case of Special Civil Application No. 20453 of 2018 is that an inquiry committee was set up and on the basis of the finding of such committee, the petitioner's appointment was found to be invalid. In Special Civil Application No. 482 of 2019 also the case of the panchayat was that the petitioner had not applied for the post in question and the register did not have any details of the application of the petitioner.
3.7 This Court initially by an order dated 20.12.2018 issued notice to the respondents making it returnable on 27.12.2018. However, by a subsequent order of 30.04.2019 considering the expansive submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the Court had on an oral statement made by Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent panchayat protected the service conditions of the petitioners. The order dated 30.04.2019 reads as under:
"In the present batch of petitions, the petitioners are those who were recruited as Vidhyasahayaks pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.12.2009. In the present respective petitions filed by them, they have challenged the show cause notice issued to them. Notice came to be issued after lapse of eight years since they were recruited and came to be appointed on the post. All the petitioners are presently working as Vidhyasahayaks since then.
2. The impugned notice issued to the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.20027 of 2018 mentioned that the merit marks were wrongly shown by the petitioner in his application made at the relevant time when he was appointed. It was stated that due to wrong mentioning of merit, the services of the petitioner was liable to be terminated as the merit did not match the minimum Page 5 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT prescribed merit standard. In the notice issued to the other petitioners, the allegation of the respondent authority is that the applications of the petitioners concerned were not received at the relevant time and they are not entered in the register. On this ground, the termination of services of the petitioners is proposed in the show cause notice, asking them to show cause as to why the termination should not be effected.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the notices issued are per se arbitrary. It is the case that nothing is attributable to the petitioners who have been working since last eight years. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for respondent No.3 relied on the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that there was a report of the Committee which disapproved the appointment of the petitioners.
4. Though the pleadings are complete, learned advocate for respondent No.3 submitted that he would be relying on a decision of the Division Bench in respect of related aspect, which is likely to be delivered in near future.
5. At the request of learned advocate for respondent No.3, the petition to stand over to 11.06.2019.
Right from the beginning, an oral statement on the part of learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for respondent No.3 made before the Court has been continuing that the respondent authority shall stay their hands and shall not take any adverse action pursuant to the impugned notice. This oral statement shall continue to operate till the next date, which shall be however without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties.
4. Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioners drew my attention to the advertisement dated 21.12.2009. He would submit that as per the advertisement the candidates Page 6 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT had to apply on or before 02.01.2010. The applications had to be either sent through RPAD or given in person. Drawing my attention to the instructions of the advertisement, Mr. Pujara would submit that with the application form necessary documents substantiating the educational qualifications of the petitioners in original with one copy each had to be submitted to the authorities.
4.1 In accordance with the stipulation in the advertisement, the petitioners had applied as per the requirements thereunder. The District Primary Education Committee had issued a receipt wherein it was demonstrated that the respondents had received the original certificates from the candidates. To demonstrate this, the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 20027 places reliance on receipt at page 14 of the petition which would suggest that 9 original documents were submitted.
4.2 Mr. Pujara would then draw my attention to the letter of the panchayat dated 20.03.2010 wherein the petitioners were asked to remain present on 30.03.2010 which also accepted the fact that the panchayat had received original documents. That the letter inviting applications were sent by RPAD were substantiated through photocopy of the acknowledgement receipt in one such case.
4.3 One common factor that Mr. Pujara would draw attention of the Court is that in the show cause notices dated 12.12.2018, a reference was made to communication dated 15.01.2010 based on which the panchayat had thought it fit to reassess the merit on its own. That communication according Page 7 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT to Mr. Pujara was subsequent to the advertisement dated 21.12.2009 and therefore could not have been taken into consideration.
4.4 It is Mr. Pujara's contention that even on reading of the contents of the notice, which refers to clause VI of the appointment order which gave respondent no. 3 the liberty to terminate the services of the petitioner without notice, it would indicate that there was no such condition in the order of appointment. That the panchayat had proceeded with a predetermined mind to terminate the services of the petitioner was also evident from the contents of the notice which stated that though liberty was reserved with the panchayat to terminate the service of the petitioners without notice, in the interest of justice such a notice was issued. This according to Mr. Pujara amply suggested that the panchayat had already taken a decision to terminate the services of the petitioners and the impugned notices were an empty formality.
4.5 Mr. Pujara would then invite my attention to a communication dated 15.01.2010 annexed with the affidavit- in-reply which initiated the process of the show cause notice and would contend that reference was made to some resolution of the government dated 07.07.2008 which has never formed part of the record. The resolution of 07.07.2008 therefore and the circumstances under which the petitioners have been made to undergo a situation of being terminated from services is completely unknown to them. It is of course subject to argument that the communication of 15.01.2010 was subsequent to the advertisement and therefore amounted Page 8 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT to changing the rules of the game.
4.6 Mr. Pujara would further contend that the petitioners have been regularly appointed and holding the post and teaching at their respective schools without any cause of complaint and after a period of more than 8 years a show cause notice is issued asking them to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated.
4.7 Mr. Pujara submitted that there is nothing in the notices that reading thereof would suggest that the petitioners have been responsible for having secured their appointment by fraud on their part or by withholding certain documents. At best it is a case where atleast in the case of petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 20027 of 2018 there is reassessment of merit based on a subsequent communication of 2010. As far as notices in the case of other petitioners are concerned, Mr. Pujara would submit with support of contemporaneous documents in the petition that it is strange of the respondent panchayat to suggest that the petitioner have neither applied nor their names find place in the register of applications. It is surprising that the authorities have on basis completely unknown to the petitioners come to a conclusion that the applications were not made by the petitioners and therefore their names did not figure in the merit list or the wait list. The annexures to the petitions even show that the petitioners have applied, receipts in proof of the applications so made have been given, call letters have been issued asking the petitioners to remain present for the interview, subsequent letters asking the petitioners to remain present for allotment of schools have been made. All these Page 9 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT circumstances are a pointer to the fact that the notices are totally without application of mind. The other submission is that the notices referred to some inquiry report of 04.07.2018. No such material in terms of the inquiry report of 05.07.2018 has been produced on record. Applications have been pressed into service by learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Pujara to support his submission that it is not open for the respondents to issue such notices after such long period of time to terminate services of the petitioners.
4.8 Decisions relied upon by Mr. Pujara in support of his submissions are as under:
(I) Patel Kantilal Ambalal vs. Government of Gujarat reported in 1993(1) GCD 690 : According to Mr. Pujara, this Court in the said judgement held that it was not the case of the respondent authority that they were compelled to terminate the service of the petitioner due to some misrepresentation and that such a termination after lapse of time of five to six years was unwarranted. (II) Inviting my attention to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 39 of 2012 and allied matters, Mr. Pujara would submit that by virtue of efflux of time and now that the petitioners have rendered more than 8 years of service such appointments ought to be saved and notices issued against them be quashed and set aside. (III) Reliance is placed on the decision rendered by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 727 of 2017 wherein three factors weighed with the Court in sustaining the appointment of the party therein, one of Page 10 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT which was the time and secondly the change in names subsequently. Mr. Pujara would submit that post 2009 by virtue of RTE Act and other requirements, more rigorous qualifications have come into play and if the services of the petitioners are terminated after 8 years they would be rendered remedyless, jobless and would not be able to secure future employment. (IV) Reliance is also placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Others [(2013) 14 SCC 494] para 22 in context of the observations of the Apex Court where in cases where a wrong or irregular appointment is made without mistake on the part of the appointee and such discovery is made later, if the candidate's appointment is bona fide, then after a considerable length of service as in the case of the present petitioners which is now 8 years, wrong show cause notice is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent panchayat has invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed in Special Civil Application No. 20027 of 2018 and would submit that in all petitions before the Court, the reply and contents thereof be treated as common. Reading of the reply would indicate that the panchayat had received 1406 applications holding qualifications of PTC and all the applications were registered in a register. That the petitioners were appointed on the basis of the merit list and a wait list that was prepared. That one Mr. Hasmukh Patel had addressed a complaint on 19.10.2015 to the District Panchayat, Kheda complaining about the irregularities in Page 11 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT appointment. On 27.11.2018 there was some communication with the Director of Primary Education. Details were made available on 06.12.2018 to the Deputy Director of Primary Education. Record was examined. Reliance is placed on the letter of the Education Department dated 15.01.2010 to support the issuance of show cause notice as a result of which candidate of Special Civil Application No. 20027 of 2018 for reassessment of merit had to be made.
5.1 Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent panchayat would further submit that the petitions challenge only the show cause notices. The petitioners availed of an opportunity of hearing and produced all materials in their control to the authorities, filed a reply based on the circumstances that may weigh with the authorities, a decision was then taken. In the present case, there is no termination and therefore the petitions challenging the show cause notices must be considered premature as according to Mr. Munshaw the position is well settled in law. Reiterating the submission by taking this Court through the communication dated 15.01.2010, Mr. Munshaw would submit that there was a recalculation of merit and therefore the petitioner in case of Special Civil Application No. 20027 of 2018 was not entitled to hold the post. As far as other show cause notices are concerned, from the records of the panchayat it had come to the notice of the Education Committee that the names of the petitioners either did not figure in the merit list or the select list, their names were not in the register of the applications made and therefore unless and until inquiry is made on the basis of the response that the petitioners filed no decision can be taken. Mere passage of time is not a ground on which the Page 12 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT show cause notices must be quashed and set aside. It is open for the petitioners to plead such circumstances before the authorities.
5.2 Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent panchayat in the alternative submitted that the interim protection that has been granted by this Court by order dated 30.04.2019 can be continued for a particular period relegating the petitioners to avail of remedy of filing response. Till a decision is taken, protection can continue so that in the event an order is passed terminating the services of the petitioner, the petitioners can avail remedy by filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State has supported the stand taken by the panchayat. Independent of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the panchayat, Mr. Sharma would contend that at present what is challenged is the show cause notice. True it may be that there is no substantial material as contended by the petitioners in context to the report dated 04.07.2018 or the document/letter dated 06.12.2018, it was always open for the petitioners to ask for such materials which can be supplied and on the basis of such materials, the petitioners would make an appropriate representation/reply to the show cause notices. Rather than come directly to this Court at the notice stage, the petitioners ought to be relegated to the authorities to file their response and only thereafter in the event an appropriate adverse order is passed, that can be subject matter of judicial review in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, the petition therefore Page 13 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT cannot be dismissed.
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties what needs to be appreciated in sequence is as under:
(a) The advertisement was issued by District Primary Education Committee for appointment of Vidya Sahayaks. A clear stipulation was provided in the advertisement that the candidates will have to apply on or before 02.01.2010 and that the applications shall be sent by RPAD- acknowledgement due or in person.
(b) The conditions in the advertisement further stipulated that along with the application form necessary documents showing the educational qualifications of a candidate will be produced in original as well as an attested copy was also to be attached.
(c) From documents annexed to each of the petitions, it is evident that the applications were sent either in person or through RPAD-acknowledgment due. The Education Committee of the Kheda Jilla Panchayat issued an acknowledgment in the prescribed format showing the list of certificates which each of the petitioners had tendered in original. The registration number in the register in which such details were entered formed part of such receipt.
(d) A call letter was issued by the District Primary Education Committee asking the petitioners to remain Page 14 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT present on 30.03.2010. Such letters were sent again by RPAD. In proof thereof, one of the petitioners has attached a photocopy of the cover through which such call letter was dispatched. Also on record is a call letter of 30.03.2010 to remain present on 12.04.2010 for appearing in the interview. By a letter dated 12.04.2010, the petitioners were intimated the places where the petitioners had to join as Vidya Sahayak on allotment of schools. The District Primary Education Committee accordingly even informed the schools. The petitioners were issued orders of appointment in August 2015 pursuant to which they joined.
(e) years after the advertisement and having undergone a selection process in the year 2010, the impugned show cause notices have been issued on 12.12.2018.
7.1 In the earlier body of this judgement, the context of the show cause notices annexed to each of the petitions have been briefly discussed. To recapitulate briefly, in case of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 20027 of 2018, the case of the panchayat is that calculation of merit was not done in accordance with the communication dated 15.01.2010. In case of rest of the petitioners show cause notices state that on inspection they have found that the petitioners never existed on the merit list or the wait list and there is no proof of the petitioners having applied for such selection.
7.2 Perusal of the show cause notices would indicate that from the preamble a reference is made to an inquiry report dated 04.07.2018. Details of the inquiry report from the Page 15 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT perusal of the show cause notice are wanting. Even in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the District Primary Education Officer, there is no reference to or mention of what this inquiry report was about and why was such an inquiry necessary. The only explanation given in the affidavit-in-reply is that one Mr. Hasmukh Patel had addressed a complaint dated 19.10.2015 to the District Primary Education Officer, Kheda District Panchayat complaining about severe irregularities in the appointment pursuant to the advertisement of 21.12.2009. The affidavit-in-reply talks of some correspondences that one had with the Director of Primary Education through letter dated 27.11.2018.
7.3 The only ground therefore on which the show cause notices have been issued in case of one of the petitioners is that there was a mistake in assessment of merit which ought to have been done in accordance with the communication dated 15.01.2010. In the case of the rest of the petitioners the ground is that their names did not find place in the merit list nor did they have details of whether the petitioners had applied.
7.4 It is therefore evident that this is not a case where the petitioners have secured appointment on misrepresentation of their qualifications or by suppression of material facts which would have weighed with the authorities for considering their selection.
8. In the case of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 20027 of 2018 what has weighed with the authorities is that there was a mistake in assessment of merit as the same Page 16 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT was not done in accordance with the communication dated 15.01.2010. What appears from reading the communication dated 15.01.2010 is that a reference is made to the Government Resolution dated 07.07.2008. Mr. Munshaw would contend that based on this resolution of the Education Department the communication of 15.01.2010 was issued as in the show cause notice and so in the affidavit-in-reply nothing is placed on record in terms of the details of the resolution of 07.07.2008 which necessitated reassessment of merit. What needs to be noted is that the advertisement was of December 2009 and the communication of 2010 could not have been pressed into service for making a claim of reassessment based on this subsequent communication.
8.1 As far as other petitioners are concerned, the observation was that their appointments needed to be cancelled because it was found that either the applicants had not applied or they had not found their names on the merit/wait list. Documents annexed with the petition namely copy of the call letter issued by the District Primary Education Committee together with the proof that they were sent by RPAD which was made in compliance of the conditions of the advertisement and receipts issued by the office with the registration number of the register on which such entries were made demonstrate that the stand of the respondent is based on non existing material. The show cause notice is bereft of any details as to on what basis did authorities come to a conclusion that there was anything to show that the petitioners had not applied.
9. The other circumstance which weighed in favour of the Page 17 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT petitioners is that the advertisement was of the year 2009. The entire recruitment was undertaken in the year 2010 and 8 years after such a process of recruitment was undertaken a show cause notice is issued to cancel such appointments. The Division Bench of this Court in paragraph no. 5 of the decision rendered in the case of Patel Kantilal Ambalal (supra) held as under:
"5. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of this Court in the case of Vipur S. Baxi and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 1988(1) GLH UJ(1) page 34. In that case the petitioners were appointed eventhough their names were not called for from the Employment Exchange. However the employees had continued in the employment for about 5-6 years and their services were sought to be terminated on the ground that their names were not called through Employment Exchange. The Court came to the conclusion that it was not the case of the respondent authority that the petitioner had made some misrepresentation or were appointed to favour them and after such a long lapse of time of five to six years."
9.1 Even while the Division Bench in the PIL being Writ Petition (PIL) No. 39 of 2012, in the context of fraudulent appointments in the case where sports certificates were obtained by fraud, reservation was expressed whether exercise of permitting the panchayat to proceed after such a long time can be undertaken.
9.2 Similarly in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra), the Apex Court in para 22 and 25 categorically held that when a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of an error the appointment is terminated, the Court should take a Page 18 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020 C/SCA/20027/2018 JUDGMENT sympathetic view in light of facts including the bonafides of the candidates and the length of service of such candidate. The Court placed reliance on the decision in the case of Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineer vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591.
10. Considering the entire issue therefore firstly on the ground that it was not the case of the respondents that the petitioners had misled into securing appointments by fraud and secondly case of the petitioners having continued to have worked for a period of 8 years now, the show cause notices deserve to be held as being bad. In the event the petitioners are relegated to respond to the show cause notices, the recital in the show cause notice that but for compliance of principles of natural justice, it was open for the respondent to terminate the services of the petitioners, shows a predetermined mind set. The qualifications and the eligibility criteria for appointments have now undergone a change and the petitioners now would be rendered ineligible for fresh selection. Keeping all these aspects in mind, the petition deserves to be allowed.
11. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The impugned show cause notices in each of the petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in each petition.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA Page 19 of 19 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 06:36:58 IST 2020