Gujarat High Court
Rupal P Gandhi vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 4 August, 2016
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/6386/2002 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6386 of 2002
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
RUPAL P GANDHI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PH PATHAK, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MANISHA L. SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MR SWAPNESHWAR
GOUTAM, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 2
MR PREMAL R JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 04/08/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By this writapplication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writapplicant a former Medical Officer has prayed for the following reliefs: Page 1 of 12 HC-NIC Page 1 of 12 Created On Wed Aug 10 01:25:12 IST 2016 C/SCA/6386/2002 JUDGMENT 18(A) to issue an oder writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the impugned decision of respondent to terminate the services of petitioner vide order dt 8.2.2002 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and fair play and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
(B) to declare that there is no justification available to the respondents to discontinue the petitioner from service and declare that the powers are exercised malafide by the respondent authority, therefore, be pleased to quash and set aside the termination of petitioner and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with special cost and compensation and pay all arrears to the petitioner with 18% interest.
(C) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to suspend further implementation and operation of the order of termination of petitioner and direct respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and allow the petitioner to discharge his duties.
(D) any other relief to which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in interest of justice together with cost.
AMENDED AS PER COURT'S ORDER DATED 06/02/2007: 18(AA) to declare the impugned decision on the part of respondents to discontinue the petitioner from service w.e.f.31.03.2005 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and grant all consequential benefits as if she was not terminated.
(BB) to declare that applicant was illegally denied appointment to the post of Medical Officer and continued to treat her as adhoc without any justification and thereby terminated her services on the ground of being adhoc appointee, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct opponents to treat applicant as appointed on the regular post of Medical Officer pursuant to selection conducted in 1995 and further direct opponents to give retrospective effect of appointment to the applicant and grant her all consequential benefits & pay arrears with 18% interest.
(CC) pending admission and final disposal of this application be pleased to direct the opponents to reinstate the applicant in service forthwith and allow her to discharge duties.
2. The case of the writapplicant may be summarized as under: 2.1 On 04/12/1991, by an office order issued by the Director of Page 2 of 12 HC-NIC Page 2 of 12 Created On Wed Aug 10 01:25:12 IST 2016 C/SCA/6386/2002 JUDGMENT Medical Services E.S.I. Scheme, the writapplicant was appointed as the Insurance Medical Officer, ClassII in the Rajkot Region of the E.S.I. Scheme purely on temporary and adhoc basis for a period of one year.
2.2 By an order dated 08/02/2002, the services of the writapplicant came to be terminated. In such circumstances, she came before this Court with the present writapplication.
3. On 11/03/2003, the following order was passed.
Heard. Mr.Pathak for the petitioner and Mr.Mehta, Ld. AGP for respondents on the question of interim relief. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that juniors to the petitioner are continued in service whose details are mentioned on page 49. Mr.Pathak submitted that the petitioner is also ready to work as adhoc Insurance Medical OfficerCl.II, more particularly, when the juniors to the petitioner are retained in service. Ld. AGP has fairly admitted that the post is vacant as on today and so far as the regular selection of the petitioner is concerned since her name was in the waiting list at Sl.No.19 and the said list was operated upto Sl.No.14 but he submitted that the said list has expired upon the expiry of period of two years the GPSC did not clear the name of the petitioner. However, the Ld. AGP has not been able to dispute the contention that juniors to petitioner whose names are mentioned on page 49 to are even today continued in service as adhoc Insurance Medical OfficersCl.II.
2. Having considered the above, in my view that when the post is vacant and at one point of time the name of the petitioner also came to be included in the GPSC waiting list and when the juniors to petitioner are also continued as Insurance Medical OfficersCl.II on adhoc basis and the petitioner is also ready and willing to work on adhoc basis no prejudice will be caused to anyone if the petitioner is also offered the work on adhoc basis as Insurance Medical OfficerCl.II until the outcome of this petition and also subject to the terms and conditions as stated hereinafter.
3. In view of the above, I am inclined to pass the following interim order:
"By way of interim order it is directed that the respondents shall offer work to the petitioner on adhoc basis as Insurance Medical OfficerCl.II which shall be subject to the outcome of this petition and also subject to clarification that it will be open to the respondents to terminate or discontinue the services of the petitioner even on adhoc basis if regularly selected GPSC candidate is available or if it decides to terminate the services of adhoc appointees on the post of Insurance Medical OfficersCl.II subject to fulfilling the principle of last come first go and as per the said principle the service of the petitioner is also required to be terminated."Page 3 of 12
HC-NIC Page 3 of 12 Created On Wed Aug 10 01:25:12 IST 2016 C/SCA/6386/2002 JUDGMENT DS permitted.
4. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the writ applicant was reinstated in service. Once again vide order dated 31/03/2005, her services came to be terminated. This writapplication was accordingly amended and the order dated 31/03/2005 has been made a subject matter of challenge.
5. On behalf of the respondents, an affidavitinreply has been filed interalia explaining the factual position as under:
3. I say that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis for the post of Medical Officer vide order dated 4.12.1991 with certain terms and conditions. The condition Nos.8 and 15 of the said order say that the appointment to the post is purely temporary and the services are liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason. I say that the extension of the appointment of the petitioner was made upto 31.12.1995. I say that the petitioner appeared in the Gujarat Public Service Commission examination and was selected. I say that the name of the petitioner was entered in the waiting list. I further say that the said waiting list was valid only upto a stipulated time. I say that as per the Government Resolution dated 27.12.1983, it is clearly provided that the waiting list will be valid only upto that particular year. I also say that it is provided in the Government Resolution that no appointment will be made from the said waiting list in the next year when a requisition is made by the Government. (Hereto annexed and marked as AnnexureRI is the Government Resolution dated 27.12.1983.)
4. I say that the period of the waiting list as provided by the Government Resolution was over. Therefore, the petitioner no longer has a right for being appointed on the said post. I say that since the period of her adhoc appointment had also got over, the Government asked for concurrence of the Gujarat Public Service Commission for extension of the period of appointment of the petitioner as per Gujarat Public Service (Exemption from Consultation) Regulation. I say that the Gujarat Public Service Commission did not give concurrence for the extension of the appointment of the petitioner and communicated not to extend her services. Therefore, the Government resolved to discontinue the adhoc services of the petitioner.
5. I say that there is no question of seniority amongst the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. Therefore, there is no question of any discrimination meted out against the petitioner. Moreover, I say that when the petitioner proceeded on medical leave she did not resume her duty after completion of her medical leave and she did not care for assuming her duty Page 4 of 12 HC-NIC Page 4 of 12 Created On Wed Aug 10 01:25:12 IST 2016 C/SCA/6386/2002 JUDGMENT for a longer period. The petitioner has remained absent for a period of 952 days, the details of which are as under: Sr. Name of the Institution from Period Total No. which the certificate issued. cert.
Days 1 Civil Hospital, Gandhidham 25.8.97 to 23.9.97 30 2 Civil Hospital, Gandhidham 24.9.97 to 23.10.97 30 3 Civil Hospital, Gandhidham 24.10.97 to 23.11.97 30 4 Civil Hospital, Gandhidham 24.11.97 to 23.12.97 30 5 Dr. R.S. Khatri, Gandhidham 24.12.97 to 22.01.98 30 6 Patel Hospital, Gandhidham 23.01.98 to 23.02.98 30 (Dr. Hemang Patel) 7 Patel Hospital, Gandhidham 24.02.98 to 25.03.98 30 (Dr. Hemang Patel) 8 Patel Hospital, Gandhidham 26.03.98 to 24.04.98 30 (Dr. Hemang Patel) 9 Prashanthi Ortho. Hosp., 25.04.98 to 30.06.98 67 Gandhidham (Dr. H.C. Hotchandani) 10 Dr. Amit C. Gandhi, Rajkot 01.07.98 to 30.09.98 92 11 Prashanthi Ortho. Hosp., 01.10.98 to 31.10.98 31 Gandhidham (Dr. H.C. Hotchandani) 12 Dr. P.N. Joshi, Manavadar 01.11.98 to 30.11.98 30 13 Dr. P.N. Joshi, Manavadar 01.12.98 to 31.12.98 31 Therefore, it is clear that she is not serious about her work. I, therefore, say that she has no right to complain before this Hon'ble Court that her services are wrongly terminated and she should be reinstated in service.
6. I say that it is held in catena of judgments by this Hon'ble Court that an adhoc employee does not have any right to the post. I, therefore, say that the present petition is devoid of any merit and, therefore, requires no interference by this Hon'ble Court.(Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure RII is the copy of one such judgment deciding the very issue in Special Civil Application No.807 of 2001.)
6. The additional affidavitinreply filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat is as under:
3. I say and submit that the petitioner was appointed on purely adhoc basis for the post of Insurance Medical Officer, ClassII vide Government order dated 4/12/1991 in which the condition No.8 & 15 of the said order specify that the post is purely temporary and the services are liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any Page 5 of 12 HC-NIC Page 5 of 12 Created On Wed Aug 10 01:25:12 IST 2016 C/SCA/6386/2002 JUDGMENT reasons. Annexed hereto and marked as AnnexureI is the copy of the appointment order.
4. I say and submit that the post of Insurance Medical Officers, ClassII was advertised by GPSC to fill up the 77 vacancies under different categories under E.S.I. Scheme, Gujarat. The said candidate was not in the selection list but she was kept in waiting list against the Sr. No.19. The GPSC has recommended only 67 candidates including 01 S.T., 06 S.E.B.C. And 07 S.C. Candidates. Considering the number of vacancies under different categories and selection made accordingly. The GPSC recommended for only selected 67 candidates and they were appointed by the Government. Against the appointment orders of 67 candidates, 14 candidates did not join their duties under E.S.I. Scheme, Gujarat.
5. I say and submit that there is a policy to operate waiting list. Annexed hereto and marked as AnnexureII is the copy of the circular dated 27/12/1983. The rules say that if a selected candidate does not join his duty or he gives up job during his probation period, the candidates from the waiting list can be asked for from GPSC. Hence, as per the rules and prescribed procedure of the Government of Gujarat the Government has asked for the waiting list to fill up the 14 posts of ClassII, Medical Officer on which the selected candidates were ordered to join the duty but did not join their duties. As the petitioner was selected under the categories of waiting list against the Sr. No.19. The waiting list can be operated only within 2 years after the selection. The said waiting list expired on 30 th June, 1997. Therefore, the question of appointment order to the petitioner does not arise at all.
6. I say and submit that as per GPSC CONSULTATION RULES, it is necessary to get consent from GPSC for the continuation in case of more than one year adhoc service. In this case the petitioners' services were continued till December 31, 1995 with the consultation of GPSC. Then the procedure was started. She was transferred at Nadiad from Jamnagar and she joined at Nadiad on 7th August, 1997. She had been absent from her duty from 25th August, 1997. It was necessary to get her confidential assessment work report for the continuation of adhoc services. She continued her absence from 25th August, 1997. She willingly continued her absence giving the reason of her sickness till 31st December, 1998. However, she never tried to join her duty again and continued her absence. She was given notice however she did nto care to join the duty.
7. I say and submit that after getting her confidential assessment work report the proposal was sent to GPSC for consent. But because of her irregular services the consent was not received. The said post is a Gazetted post and it is difficult to continue adhoc services without the consent of GPSC. Annexed hereto and marked as AnnexureIII is the copy of the letter dated 17/2/2002 from the GPSC.
8. I say and submit that for the continuation of adhoc doctors or the discontinuation of their services, the question of seniority arise under the circumstances when the regularity of the doctors and their reports are satisfactory.
Page 6 of 12
HC-NIC Page 6 of 12 Created On Wed Aug 10 01:25:12 IST 2016
C/SCA/6386/2002 JUDGMENT
I say and submit that for discontinuation of the services, it is not only the seniority which plays role regularity, sincerity and dedication towards the job is utmost important as the candidate is performing his/her duties is directly related to the health of the common men, absence of any one of this there is a direct impact of the health of common men. Such factors who also play role in discontinuation of the services.
9. I say and submit that the petitioner was declared fit before which she almost enjoyed total 992 days of leave after that she resume her duty almost after a year which is enough to prove her regularity and keenness towards the job.
I say and submit that there was no communication gap at all. When she came to join her duty on 21 st January, 1999, the Officer incharge guided her to contact at the Directorate for the joining of her duties. But in spite of that petitioner has reported the directorate office on 30/3/2000 i.e. almost after a year. The Directorate immediately issued the necessary orders for which she can resume her duty and the petitioner has reported her duty immediately after that. This is sufficient to prove that there was no discrimination malafide intention against the petitioner but one has to carry out the activities/ procedure prescribed rules of the Government. Government has sanctioned her leaves from 24/9/1997 to 2/4/2000 vide No.KRV/1020011014Ch, dated 1/8/2002 on after termination of her service. This also shows that there was no discrimination against the petitioner.
10. I say and submit that the petitioner's service were terminated because of her negligence in joining duty a fall absence for long period as per the recommendation of the GPSC.
11. I say and submit that the details of selection process and the appointment through GPSC has been already narrated in Para No.2.
I say and submit that the say of the petitioner is not correct as it is already made clear that when she resume the duty she was correctly guided to contact the directorate office to carry out formalities. But she her own turned up almost after a gap of one year. As soon as she reported the Directorate office on 30/3/2000 on the same day the directorate office has issued necessary order to join the duties and she reported for the duty on 3/4/2000. This is suffice to say that there was no discrimination or communication gap.
7. The last affidavit dated 26/12/2012 filed by the State Government states as under:
3. I say and submit that the Gujarat Public Commission had published an advertisement non:72/1995 of total 77 Insurance Medical OfficerII on dated 31.07.1994, which are as under: Page 7 of 12 HC-NIC Page 7 of 12 Created On Wed Aug 10 01:25:12 IST 2016 C/SCA/6386/2002 JUDGMENT Sr. Category Post No. 1 Ganeral Category 57 2 Scheduled Cast 6 3 Scheduled Tribe 11 4 S.E.B.C. 3 Total 77
4. I say and submit that the GPSC had published the final result on 06.06.1995, wherein the following candidates were included in select list/ waiting list: Sr. Category Select list Waiting list No. 1 Ganeral Category 57 27 2 Scheduled Cast 6 13 3 Scheduled Tribe 11 0 4 S.E.B.C. 3 3 Total 77 43
5. I say and submit that as the petitioner belongs to General Category, the details of the Insurance Medical OfficerII belonging to general Category are as under: Sr. Subject Date Vacancies No. (General Category) 1 Selected candidates by GPSC 01/07/95 57 2 Duty joined by candidates 02/08/95 44 3 Post of IMO (classII) remain Vacant 13 4 1st Requisition to GPSC for vacant post 19.07.1996 12(*) 5 Out of 12 candidate 08 had joined 02/12/96 8 6 Post of IMO (ClassII) remain vacant 4 7 2nd Requisition to GPSC for vacant post 03/04/97 4 8 Out of 04 candidate 03 had joined 3 9 Post of IMO (ClassII) remain vacant 1 10 3rd Requisition to GPSC for vacant post 27.05.1997 1 11 Candidate joined the duty 20.08.1997 1 12 Total (12+4+1)= 17 (*) Total 13 post were vacant but, by inadvertent calculations made Page 8 of 12 HC-NIC Page 8 of 12 Created On Wed Aug 10 01:25:12 IST 2016 C/SCA/6386/2002 JUDGMENT requisition for 12 posts were called for. Therefore, total 17 names from waiting list of General Category were called for from GPSC.
6. I say and submit that looking to the above facts that the Health and Family Welfare Department had operated waiting list for 3 times and called for total 17 names from general Category. Out of 12 names to be called for requisition, 01 name which was inadvertently not called for. The 01 name which was not operated at the first time even if the names from the waiting list have been called for after calculation of 13 names even than the total upto Sr. No.18 candidate's list could be operated. I further say that the petitioner was kept on waiting list at sr. no.19.
7. I further say and submit that the petitioner has claimed that 01 candidate named Dr. Shirish Gandhi had resigned from his duty on 04.06.1996; this name could have been included in the first requisition made to GPSC. It is to clarify that Dr. Shirish Gandhi had resumed his duty on 02.08.1995 at Ankleshwar after being selected by GPSC. His resignation was sanctioned on 04.06.1996. He tendered his resignation after resumption of his duty. Therefore, the post of Dr. Gandhi cannot be considered as vacant as he has already resumed, and thereafter resigned and by that way he has utilized that post, which was advertised by the Government and the same post can be considered vacant only for the next requisition/ Advertisement of the State Government. Moreover, once the candidate has resumed and resigned on particular post than such names from the waiting list cannot be called for because names from the waiting list can only be called for only when there is vacant post, where the candidates who have been given orders to resume to duty and has not resumed the duty. Thus, the post of Dr. Gandhi under consideration cannot be termed as vacant post and the name of the petitioner cannot be called for form waiting list from GPSC.
8. I further say and submit that the petitioner has also claimed that another 01 candidate named Dr. Umesh Shah had resigned from his duty on 28.5.1997; this name could have been included in the requisition made to GPSC. It is to clarify that Dr. Umesh Shah had also resumed his duty on 08.10.1995 at D31, ESIS, Ahmedabad after being selected by GPSC. He had resumed the duty and after that he tendered his resignation which was accepted and sanctioned on 28.05.1997. Therefore, the post of [Dr. Shah cannot be considered as vacant as he has already resumed, and then after resigned, and by that way he was utilized that post, which was advertised by the Government and the same post can be considered vacant for the next requisition/ advertisement of the State Government. Dr. Shah had resumed his duty on: 08.10.1995, he resigned on: 28.05.1997 and the requisition for the vacant post was called on 27.05.1997. Moreover, once the candidate has resumed and resigned on particular post for such post names from the waiting list cannot be called for because names from the waiting list can only be called for when vacant post is available, where the candidates who have been given orders to resume to duty and has not resumed the duty. Thus, the post of Dr. Shah under consideration cannot be termed as vacant post and the name of the petitioner cannot be called for from waiting list from GPSC.
9. I say and submit that, looking to the above facts, only 18 posts were vacant at that time and 17 names have been called for, petitioner was kept Page 9 of 12 HC-NIC Page 9 of 12 Created On Wed Aug 10 01:25:12 IST 2016 C/SCA/6386/2002 JUDGMENT on waiting list at Sr. no19, thus, question does not arises to call her name from waiting list from GPSC.
10. The petitioner was selected but was in the waiting list. The waiting list remains in force for a period of two years from the date of its publication or till the new list is published, whichever is earlier. The list was published in June, 1995 and was therefore, become inoperative in June, 1997. The petitioner was not appointed till June 1997 and thereafter, the said list became in operative since, the petitioner was placed in the waiting list, therefore it was not incumbent upon the State Government to give her an appointment.
8. Thus, it appears that in the year 1995, the GPSC had issued an advertisement for filling up 77 posts of the Insurance Medical OfficerII. It also appears that pursuant to the said advertisement, the writ applicant had applied and was placed in the waitinglist at Sr. No.19. The waitinglist was operated for three times. 17 candidates from the waitinglist falling in the General Category were appointed. Before the writapplicant could be considered, the life of the waitinglist came to an end. With that the entire recruitment came to an end. Despite the same, the writapplicant continued in service as an adhoc employee. What weighed with the authority in terminating her adhoc employment was the leave of 992 days. She was found to be irregular in her work and even after the expiry of the sanctioned leave, she did not resume and remained unauthorizedly absent. No misconduct has been alleged in the simple order of termination. No stigma could be said to have been attached to such innocuous order of termination. If something has been imputed in the affidavitinreply which to a certain extent could be termed as stigmatic, it would not make an otherwise innocuous order stigmatic in nature.
9. Ms. Kamani, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the two decisions of the Supreme Court i.e.(i) in the case of 'Naseem Ahmad and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another' reported in (2001) 2 SCC 734 and (ii) in the case of 'State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others Vs. Sat Pal' reported in (2013) 11 SCC 737. Both the judgments Page 10 of 12 HC-NIC Page 10 of 12 Created On Wed Aug 10 01:25:12 IST 2016 C/SCA/6386/2002 JUDGMENT are on the issue of operation of the waitinglist. In my view, both the judgments are of no avail to the writapplicant.
10. Ms. Kamani, the learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Company Limited and Others Vs. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 345. The case before the Supreme Court was one of a Government Company, an instrumentality of a 'State' within the meaning of Article12 of the Constitution. The respondent employees therein, were terminated in view of the Clause 11(a) of the letter of appointment which provided that the company would have a right, which would be exercised at its sole discretion, to terminate the services of such employees by giving them three calendar months' notice in writing, without assigning any reason for such decision. The respondent challenged the said termination order by filing writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing that the said termination order be quashed. The High Court took the view that the company was neither a 'State', nor any other authority within the meaning of Article12 of the Constitution, and thus the writ petition itself was not maintainable. The matter went to another learned Single Judge, who took the view that the company was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The matter was referred to a third Judge Bench who took the view that the company was a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Company being aggrieved, carried the matter before the Supreme Court.
11. The Supreme Court considered the Clause11(a) of the letter of appointment, which reads as under: Clause 11(a) of the letter of appointment reads as under:
"The Company shall have the right, at its sole discretion, to terminate your services by giving you three calendar months notice in writing and without Page 11 of 12 HC-NIC Page 11 of 12 Created On Wed Aug 10 01:25:12 IST 2016 C/SCA/6386/2002 JUDGMENT assigning any reason. The Company also reserves the right to pay you in lieu of notice, a sum by way of compensation equal to three months emoluments consisting of basic salary, dearness allowance, house rent assistance and bonus entitlements, if any, after declaration of bonus".
12. In para40, while declaring Clause11 of the appointment letter as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court observed as under: Undoubtedly, the High Court has not dealt with the issue on merits with respect to the termination of the services of the respondents herein. However, considering the fact that such termination took place several decades ago, and litigation in respect of the same remained pending not only before the High Court, but also before this Court, it is desirable that the dispute come to quietus. Therefore, we have dealt with the case on merits. In keeping with this, we cannot approve the "hire and fire" policy adopted by the appellant company, and the terms and conditions incorporated in the Manual of Officers in 1976, cannot be held to be justifiable, and the same being arbitrary, cannot be enforced. In such a factsituation, clause11 of the appointment letter is held to be an unconscionable clause, and thus the Service Condition Rules are held to be violative of Article14 of the Constitution to this extent. The contract of employment is also held to be void to such extent.
13. The Court also considered the other terms and conditions incorporated in the Manual of Officers and found to be unreasonable. In the facts of that case, the contract of employment was ultimately held to be void to a certain extent. This judgment also in my view is of no avail of the writapplicant.
14. In view of the above, this writapplication fails and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) aruna Page 12 of 12 HC-NIC Page 12 of 12 Created On Wed Aug 10 01:25:12 IST 2016