Gujarat High Court
Murlidhar vs State on 15 November, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/17039/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17039 of 2011
=========================================
MURLIDHAR
ANJANIROY - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THRO THE SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR NK MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 15/11/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ, order or direction from this Court in exericse of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct respondent authorities to consider or decide representation dated 23.8.2011 in terms of order dated 28.7.2011 passed in Special Civil Application NO.9283 of 2011 and alternatively, prayed for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 24.6.2011 and 30.6.2011 as the orders are illegal and discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice.
2. That, initially the petitioner was appointed as medical officer on 22.6.2003 though on ad hoc basis and continued in service but when the petitioner apprehended his termination, a writ petition being Special Civil Application NO. 28015 of 2007 was preferred which came to be disposed of by an order dated 30th October, 2007 with a direction to decide the representation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation by assigning reasons. It is to be noted that in the above order the case of the petitioner was not considered by adjudicating issues on merit and no declaration of law was made. However, in the second round of litigation the petitioner along with other petitioners filed Special Civil Application No. 6376 of 2008 and allied matters seeking almost similar relief in which rule was issued keeping it open for the State Government to relieve the petitioner if the candidates selected by GPSC were available. Meanwhile, the petitioner attempted twice but could not clear the examination conducted by Gujarat Public Service Commission. From the record there appears that petitioner came to be arrested pursuant to FIR registered under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of IPC but bailed out by the competent Court. The service of the petitioner came to be terminated by the impugned orders dated 24.6.2011 and 30.6.2011.
2.1. With the above backdrop of facts the petitioner once again approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 9283 of 2011 which also came to be disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the representation that may be made. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred representation which remained undecided and the case of the petitioner is neither re-examined nor reconsidered.
3. Mr. Suthar, learned advocate for the petitioner, therefore, would contend that service of similarly situated candidates like the petitioner and others who were appointed subsequently have been continued while in a pick and chose manner service of the petitioner is terminated without assigning reasons and even without following principle of natural justice. It is further submitted that once again the petitioner has appeared in GPSC examination where he is declared passed and in case if he fails to submit no objection certificate from the authority, an adverse decision would be taken by the GPSC and would affect his chance of getting the appointment.
3.1. Considering the above it is submitted that the prayer in terms of paragraph 16 (B) and (C) be granted.
4. On perusal of various orders passed by learned Single Judge of this Court along with orders impugned and other relevant annexures it reveals that except issuance of direction to respondent authorities to reconsider and re-examine the case of the petitioner, no other issue was decided and representation submitted by the petitioner in backdrop of pending criminal case for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120(B) of IPC and decision that is taken for terminating service of the petitioner cannot be said to be in any manner contrary to law inasmuch as, no right whatsoever accrues in favour of the petitioner by virtue of his conditional and ad hoc appointment in which various terms of the appointment clearly mention that the appointment was subject to termination without assigning reasons. Action taken by the respondent authority to terminate service of the petitioner even if duly selected candidate by GPSC is not available cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable or contrary to law in any manner since the authority appointing the candidate on ad hoc basis predominantly reserve right to put an end to service and no duty is cast upon the authority either to afford any opportunity of hearing or issue show cause notice or give any reason for such termination. In a matter of public employment the recruitment is to be undertaken by the authority only in accordance with recruitment rules and if process other than the above if undertaken would amount irregular exercise of powers and contrary to decision of this Court in case of K.D. Vohra v. Kamleshbhai Gobarbhai Patel [2003(2) GLH 1343] in which Division Bench of this Court deprecated the practice of appointing ad hoc lecturer in Government Engineering Colleges dehors recruitment rules. In the above circumstances, if the respondent authorities have not taken any action in re-examining or reconsidering the order of termination of the petitioner cannot be said to be in any manner illegal and no direction as sought for can be given.
5. This petition is devoid of merit and rejected summarily. No order as to costs.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita// Top