Gujarat High Court
Dipesh Bharatbhai Joshi vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 26 September, 2014
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
C/CA/10457/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 10457 of 2014
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11020 of 2010
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11020 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
================================================================
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, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
DIPESH BHARATBHAI JOSHI....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR APURVA R KAPADIA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. RONAK RAVAL ASSTT.GOVT. PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NIKHILESH J. SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Page 1 of 4
C/CA/10457/2014 JUDGMENT
Date : 26/09/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Considering the fact that the prayer made in the Civil Application is almost similar to the one made in Special Civil Application, this Court has heard the parties on the main petition.
2. Having considered the rival contentions there does not appear to be a dispute on the fact that the petitioners were appointed through set recruitment procedure as Surveyors w.e.f 15th June 2004. In the Civil Application an order dated 30th October 2013 regularising various similarly situated Surveyors has been produced and there does not appear to be a serious dispute that the petitioners also can be regularised in terms of the said order. Even otherwise this Court has been consistent in its view that regularly selected employees cannot be continued for long on contractual, adhoc or temporary basis and they are required to be regularised. Even in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V. Umadevi & Ors (AIR 2006 SC1806), the Apex Court emphasised Page 2 of 4 C/CA/10457/2014 JUDGMENT the need for regularisation of such employees and deprecated the practice of making appointments on permanent post on contractual or on adhoc basis for long time.
3. In above view of the matter the petition is required to be allowed partly as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, to an effect that the petitioner will be regularised not from the date of inception in service but from the date his juniors were regularised. Accordingly the petition is partly allowed in above terms and the petitioner shall be regularised in terms of the order dated 30th October 2013. The decision to regularise the petitioner will be taken by the respondent preferably within a period of six weeks from today. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct service is permitted.
4. In view of the above this Civil Application does not survive and the same is also disposed of.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J.)
Page 3 of 4
C/CA/10457/2014 JUDGMENT
mary
Page 4 of 4