Matching Fragments
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Nirav K. Majmudar for the petitioner and Mr.
Amit Patel, learned AGP for the State Authority.
2. As per the case of the petitioner, petitioner is entitled for the benefit of
higher pay scale as per GR dated 21.7.1997. He is entitled for the benefit
of ad hoc service rendered by him prior to passing of the GPSC
Examination but the same has not been given to the petitioner. Petitioner
was appointed on 24.11.1987 and cleared GPSC Examination on
22.11.1995 page 19 serial no. 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar for
the petitioner submits that the Resolution dated 21st July, 1997 is
providing to give benefit of the Resolution dated 17.10.94 subject passing
of GPSC Examination within three attempts in respect of ad hoc medical
officers. He submits that the said resolution was subsequently cancelled on
21.6.2006 but that resolution is not having retrospective effect. As per
page 85, minutes of meeting held on 15th May, 2006, decision has been
taken considering the earlier resolution but as per subsequent minutes at
page 90, it has been decided not to consider earlier resolution dated
21.7.1997 but in affidavit in reply page 84 in SCA NO. 11634 of 2004,
they have not denied the right of consideration of ad hoc service.
HC-NIC Page 9 of 13 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:26:51 IST 2016
C/SCA/27452/2007 JUDGMENT
6 I say and submit that the present petitioner was appointed as
Bonded candidate on 24111987 and thereafter the first advertisement
for the same post has been advertised by the G.P.S.C. vide advertisement
No.174 of 89/90. In the present petition, the petitioner did not apply in
response to the said advertisement. Thereafter, GPSC published second
advertisement in 1991 for special recruitment of S.T. Candidates. In the
year 1995 the G.P.S.C. published third advertisement for recruitment for
all categories vide advertisement No.36/9495 in which the present
petitioner had appeared and was declared as passed which is a second trial
of the present petitioner after his appointment. The present petitioner is
therefore, not entitled for counting the adhoc service for giving the benefit
of higher pay scale as per the Government Order dated 18.06.1996. It is
very clear from the prayer of the present petitioner which has been made
by him that the present petitioner is not challenging the Government
Order dated 18.06.1996 and 21072006. Hence, it is very clear that the
present petitioner is not entitled for counting the adhoc services which has
been sought for and higher pay scale has been given to the present
petitioner from the date of passing the GPSC examination and the order
has been passed on 30092006.
8 I offer no remarks on the averments made by the petitioner in para
3 and 3.1 to 3.5 of the petition.
9 As regards para 3.6 of the petition, it is respectfully submitted that
the petitioner was initially appointed on adhoc basis and was required to
appear and pass the first examination held by the GPSC imediately after
his appointment on adhoc basis. As stated earlier, an advertisement was
published in 1990 which was the first advertisement after appointment of
the petitioner in which he did not apply. The petitioner had appeared in
the second examination held for all categories in 1995 which was the
second examination held by GPSC after his appointment on adhoc basis.
Therefore, his attempt in 1995 cannot be said to be the first attempt.
10 As regards the averments made by the petitioner in para 3.7 and
3.8 of the petition, it is respectfully submitted that due to the requirement
of certain information, the orders for grant of Tikku Commission to the
petitioner could not be issued. Meanwhile, the State Government had vide
GR dated 21.7.2006 cancelled the GR dated 21.7.1997 and decided to
grant the benefit of Tikku Commission to such Medical Officers only from
the date of their passing the GPSC examination in second or third or from
the date of appointment as GPSC selected candidate. However, it was
specified in the said GR dated 21.7.2006 that past cases shall not be
reviewed. As stated above, till the issue of the said GR dated 21.7.2006,
the orders for grant of Tikku Commission to the petitioner were not issued.
Since, the GR dated 21.7.1997 was cancelled with effect from 21.7.2006,
any order issued after 21.7.2006 was required to be issued in accordance
with the provisions of the GR dated 21.7.2006. Accordingly, the petitioner
was granted the benefit of Tikku Commission after taking into
consideration the services from the date of passing the GPSC examination
which is consonance with the GR dated 21.7.2006."
