Gujarat High Court
Vyas Amit Dipakkumar & 17 vs Principal District Judge & 2 on 29 March, 2017
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
C/SCA/16911/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16911 of 2013
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 270 of 2015
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 286 of 2015
==========================================================
VYAS AMIT DIPAKKUMAR & 17....Petitioner(s)
Versus
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TR MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 18
MR UTKARSH SHAMRA AND MS VRUNDA SHAH, AGPs for the
Respondent(s) No. 3
NONE PRESENT for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Date : 29/03/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners, by way of the present petitions, have challenged the order dated 6.6.2013 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent No.1 terminating their services as Assistants in the establishment of District Court, Bhavnagar.
2. Heard the learned Advocate Mr.T. R. Mishra for Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Tue Aug 15 13:42:32 IST 2017 C/SCA/16911/2013 ORDER the petitioners and Ms.Vrunda Shah, learned AGP for the respondent No.3. None is present for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. The short facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the petitioners were appointed as the Assistants on temporary/ad hoc and on stop-gap arrangement basis by the respondent No.1 vide the order dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure-B). According to the petitioners, all of a sudden their services came to be terminated by the respondent No.1 vide the order dated 6.6.2013 (Annexure-C). It is further case of the petitioners that after the termination of their services, certain other persons were appointed by the respondent No.1 vide the order dated 12.6.2013 (Annexure-E) on temporary and ad hoc basis and hence, the present petitions were filed.
4. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Advocate Mr.Mishra for the petitioners that as per the settled legal position, the respondents could not appoint fresh persons on ad hoc basis, replacing the employees, who were appointed on ad hoc basis. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Dr. S. C. Kaushik Vs. Union of India and Anr., reported in 1980 GLR 997. According to him, the persons, who have been appointed as per Annexure-E being also on temporary/ad hoc basis, the action of the respondents in terminating the Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Tue Aug 15 13:42:32 IST 2017 C/SCA/16911/2013 ORDER services of the petitioners, replacing them by other set of ad hoc employees is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
5. The Court does not find any substance in the said submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr.Mishra for the petitioners. As transpiring from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the new recruitment on the post of Assistants was made by the High Court by way of Centralized Recruitment Process, and the candidates mentioned in the said appointment order dated 5.6.2013 (Annexure-E) specifically stated that they were appointed on temporary and ad hoc basis, however, in the regular pay-scale of Rs.5200-20200. The appointments of the petitioners being on temporary and ad hoc basis and by way of stop-gap arrangement on fixed salary and till the availability of the regular candidates, as stated in the appointment order itself, it could not be said that the respondents had replaced the petitioners by other set of ad hoc employees. The new recruitees have been appointed after following due recruitment process and in the regular pay-scale. The issue has been elaborately dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Harendrasinh Laxmansinh Ramlavat and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, in Letters Patent Appeal No.959 of 2013 decided on 6.1.2014, which is part of the record.
Page 3 of 4HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Tue Aug 15 13:42:32 IST 2017 C/SCA/16911/2013 ORDER
6. In that view of the matter, there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1, the present petitions deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.) vinod Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Tue Aug 15 13:42:32 IST 2017