IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15153 of 2010 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH ========================================= ========================================= CHETAN D KANDOLIYA - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance :
MR APURVA R KAPADIA for Petitioner(s) : 1, Mr N J Shah, Asstt.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 & 2, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH Date : 30/03/2012 C.A.V. JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned Notice dated 30.10.2010 issued by the respondent No.2-The Chief Executive Officer, Anjar Area Development authority whereby the petitioner's service as AutoCAD Operator, Class III was terminated w.e.f. 31.11.2010 (sic. 30.11.2010), the petitioner has filed this Special Civil Application with the following prayers:
“19 (A) .... .... .... ....
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned Notice dated 30.10.2010 issued by the respondent and further be pleased to direct the respondent authority not to terminate the services of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to work on his post and further be pleased to direct the respondent to make the regular payment of his salary regularly on every month, as if the impugned notice dated 30.10.2010 is not issued to the petitioner.
[C] .... .... .... ...”
2. The non-controversial facts between the parties of this case are as under:
On 24.7.2003 respondent No.2 had given an advertisement in the local daily newspaper namely Gujarat Samachar (Rajkot Edition) for the post of AutoCAD Operator and other various posts as mentioned therein. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner had applied for the post of AutoCAD Operator, Class III and pursuant to the decision of the Selection Committee of the authority and respondent No.2 vide order dated 26.8.2003 appointed the petitioner as AutoCAD Operator, Class III and the said appointment was on fixed salary, ad hoc and contract basis for a period of three months. Along with the petitioner, other persons were also appointed on various posts. The services of the petitioner was extended periodically for three months each depending upon the availability of work. The State Government had issued a Resolution dated 16.2.2006 of the Finance Department whereby the employees who have completed five years' service satisfactorily, if thought fit by respondent No.2, be regularized as mentioned therein. Pursuant to the above Resolution, various representations were received by respondent No.1 from various Area Development Authorities i.e. Rapar, Bhuj, Bhachau, Anjar etc. The Deputy Secretary of the Urban Housing and Urban Development Department, vide order dated 14.2.2008, regularised services of six employees of different Area Development Authorities referred above. As the petitioner has completed five years' service on 25.8.2008, he made representations dated 1.9.2008, 22.12.2008 and 12.5.2009 to the respondents to regularize his services. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed Special Civil Application No. 14944 of 2010 for regularization of his services on the post of AutoCAD Operator. During the pendency of the same, the petitioner received the impugned notice of termination dated 30.10.2010 terminating his services and so, the petitioner had withdrawn the said petition with a view to challenge the said notice of termination and accordingly he has filed the present petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.15153 of 2010.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been continuously working as such since 2003 and he has rendered seven years' service honestly and sincerely and during his service tenure, there was no complaint against the petitioner nor any inquiry is pending against the petitioner. However, the services of the petitioner is terminated illegally and arbitrarily without any reason. He submitted that without hearing the petitioner or without giving an opportunity of being heard, the respondent authority has issued the impugned notice of termination which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the similarly situated employees who were appointed along with the petitioner were regularized in services. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that as per circular dated 16.2.2000, the employees who were initially appointed on fixed term and who have completed five years' service are entitled to the benefit of regularization. However, the respondent authority, instead of regularizing the services of the petitioner, wanted to terminate the services of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that if the services of the petitioner is terminated, family members of the petitioner would suffer from starvation and hence on humanitarian ground, services of the petitioner is required to be protected.
4. Mr N J Shah, learned AGP vehemently opposed to the present application. Mr Gunvant C. Vaghela, Additional Collector and Chief Executive Officer, Anjar Area Development Authority, Anjar, Kachchh, in his affidavit-in-reply stated that the appointment of the petitioner was pursuant to the decision of the selection committee of the authority since 16.8.2003 and that too on fixed pay, ad hoc and contract basis for a period of three months. The same was extended periodically for three months each depending upon the availability of work. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the post of AutoCAD operator is not comparable with the post of Surveyor. In a general meeting of the authority held on 4.7.2003 it was resolved to have a post of AutoCAD operator on fixed pay basis. It is further stated that there is no authority given by the Resolution dated 16.2.2006 to give regular appointment to a post which is not sanctioned on the set up. In the Board meeting No.24 held on 9.1.2009 regular appointment was unanimously negated. In para 9 of the affidavit-in-reply it is stated that pursuant to resolution dated 14.2.2008 of the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Gandhinagar, it was resolved to give regular appointment and at that time the petitioner had not completed five years and thus he could not be considered. It is also stated that the post of AutoCAD Operator was not sanctioned by the Government on the set up of the Authority. It is further stated that by communication dated 30.10.2010, services of the petitioner was ordered to be put an end to from 30.11.2010 and the date 31.11.2010 mentioned in the Office Order is a typographical error. It is further stated in para 13 of the affidavit-in-reply that the post of AutoCAD Operator is not equivalent to the post of Surveyor and hence the petitioner was not entitled to regularization and it was not possible for the authority to regularize the services of the petitioner.
5. I have considered the above referred rival submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties in light of the documents produced by them in support of their case. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to prayer para 19 [A], [B] and [C] and submitted that the petitioner, as such, has sought the prayer to direct the respondent authorities not to terminate the services of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to work on his post and further to direct the respondent to make payment of his salary regularly every month as if the impugned notice dated 30.10.2010 has not been issued to the petitioner and as such he has not sought prayer for regularization of his services for the post of AutoCAD Operator in this petition.
5.1. Learned AGP Mr Shah submitted that if one goes through the entire petition and the averments made along with the grounds mentioned therein, it is obvious that while deciding the prayer sought for by the present petitioner, the Court has to deal with all the aspects and contentions raised therein and in absence of the same, it is not possible to decide the prayer as sought for by the petitioner.
5.2. On a careful perusal of the averments of the present petition, the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.2 and the rejoinder-affidavit of the petitioner along with the documents on record, I find myself in agreement with the submissions made by the learned AGP that though as per the petitioner the prayer according to him is limited for challenging the termination order only but to decide the same, the court has to enter into each and every aspect of the same for proper adjudication of the question involved in this case.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has mainly argued that from the advertisement dated 24.7.2003 published in the newspaper referred above, it can easily be revealed that the post of AutoCAD Operator is equivalent to the post of Surveyor and though he has been appointed as AutoCAD Operator, Class III, during most of his tenure he has worked as AutoCAD Operator and Surveyor as the authorities are taking the work consisting of both the aforesaid posts and hence the respondents' contentions with regard to non-availability of work for the petitioner as AutoCAD Operator is nothing but mere eyewash and as such post of AutoCAD Operator and Surveyor is the same. The qualification required for both the posts - AutoCAD Operator and Surveyor in the public advertisement as referred above is also the same. Not only that but even for the post of Surveyor one of the requirement was that of AutoCAD Operator. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has then drawn my attention to the documents – RJ 1 and RJ 2 and submitted that as mentioned therein, the respondents themselves are taking work from the petitioner of the post of Surveyor and the petitioner even as on date was carrying out the work of Surveyor and by all means the post of AutoCAD Operator and Surveyor is the same. Document at RJ 1 is the copy of the minutes of the General Meeting and document at RJ 2 is the copy of the certificate issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner wherein it can be seen that in the year 2005 a certificate was issued to the present petitioner wherein post of the petitioner on which he was working was shown as 'Surveyor' and even in the year 2009 also respondent No.2 issued certificate wherein the post on which the petitioner was working was shown as AutoCAD Operator/Surveyor. Post of Surveyor is already sanctioned by the respondent authorities and at present even one post is lying vacant for the post of Surveyor and so if the respondent authorities wanted to regularize the services of the petitioner they could have done it for the post of Surveyor as the post of Surveyor and AutoCAD Operator are the same and the respondents have taken work of Surveyor from the petitioner and only because of mala fide intention and not only that since the respondents did not want to regularize the service of the petitioner, they adopted a shortcut method and the impugned order of termination of services dated 30.10.2010 terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed and so it is required to be quashed and set aside.
6.1. Referring to the copy of the public Notice dated 24.7.2003 published in the daily newspaper Gujarat Samachar, Rajkot Edition at Annexure 'B', it is clear that the post of Surveyor is shown at sr.no.3 and post of AutoCAD Operator is shown at sr.no. 4 and thus it is clear that both the posts are shown separately right from the beginning. Vide Annexure 'H' at page 60 produced by respondent No.2, the work to be carried out by the Surveyor and by the AutoCAD Operator is shown as under:
Duties of Surveyor Duties of AutoCAD Operator Handing over possession, soil testing report and work of land acquisition survey, development permission of ward 1 to 12 and T.P. 1 to 4, handing over possession of T.P 1 to 4, work pertaining to court matter, proposals to the Government, Implementa-tion of T.P. Scheme. Demand for land, work of N.O.C. Tracer and other assigned work pertaining to the Technical Branch.
Work pertaining to T.P., D.P. Maps, D.P. Part Plan, T.P. Scheme Sketch plan, zoning certificate and part plan, zone change part plan and work assigned by the office.
7. Referring the document at Annexure 'D' dated 2.5.2001 submitted by respondent No.2, it is noticed that 17 posts have been shown which are sanctioned posts for which learned Advocate for respondent No.2 argued that referring the Annexure 'D', it is clear that post of AutoCAD Operator has not been shown as sanctioned post.
8. Learned AGP submitted that post of AutoCAD Operator thus is not comparable with the post of Surveyor but with ulterior motive, the petitioner has tried to create an impression and wrongly argued that both the posts are same. Referring the document Annexure 'A' at pages No.43 to 45, it appears that a meeting was held on 30.5.2003 headed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Housing and Urban Development Department and after considering the work of the respondent authority, by Resolution No.9 it was decided to appoint an AutoCAD Operator and accordingly as mentioned in the document at Annexure 'B' page No.46 general meeting of the authority was held on 4.7.2003 and it was resolved to have a post of AutoCAD Operator on fixed pay basis. Accordingly appointment of the petitioner on fixed pay of Rs. 5,000/- per month was made subject to the terms and conditions offered by letter dated 26.8.2003 and the same was continued after three months. Thus, as referred above, the post of AutoCAD Operator which the petitioner was holding is not a sanctioned post by Government on the set up of respondent No.2-authority and it is clear from document at Annexure 'D' page No.52. Referring the document at Annexure 'E' page No.54 it appears that vide letter dated 22.2.2009, the authority has proposed to the Government to have a new post of AutoCAD Operator on the set up of the authority but there was no response from the Government. I have carefully gone through the above documents and nothing substantial has been argued by the other side and there appears force and substance in the above referred submissions made by the learned AGP.
8.1. Perusal of document at Annexure RJ 1, the copy of the minutes of the General Meeting, it appears that for a good number of period the petitioner has worked as Surveyor. Also two certificates of the year 2005 and 2009 which have been issued by respondent No.2 show that the petitioner had worked as Surveyor. But by doing the work of the Surveyor, the petitioner cannot say that the post of Surveyor and AutoCAD Operator are the same and, therefore, only the said work of Surveyor has been entrusted to him. For want of sufficient work related to AutoCAD Operator and just to keep the petitioner busy, if at all the work of Surveyor has been entrusted then at the most by that as such respondent No. 2 had saved termination of services of the petitioner at an early point of time but by entrusting the work of Surveyor and by doing the said work by the petitioner, no right on the post of Surveyor is created in favour of the petitioner and though the petitioner is well aware of the fact that he has been appointed to the post of AutoCAD Operator only and thereafter in absence of sufficient work of AutoCAD Operator, respondent No.2 had in fact favoured the petitioner by entrusting the work of the Surveyor but simply because of that it cannot be said that the post of Surveyor and the post of AutoCAD Operator are same. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of the petitioner that the work related to AutoCAD Operator had been entrusted by respondent No.2 to any other employees of the respondent- authority and only from the petitioner the respondent No.2 had taken the work of Surveyor. In short, from the above discussion it is clear that the sanctioned post of AutoCAD Operator on the set up of respondent No.2 had not been on the set up from the beginning and purely on adhoc basis the same was created and the petitioner was appointed on the said post on adhoc basis as referred above. For want of sufficient work of AutoCAD Operator, later on, if the work of Surveyor had been taken from the petitioner, then in my view, he cannot claim the services of the said post of Surveyor by submitting that as per his knowledge one post of Surveyor is vacant.
8.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued on the point that services of other similarly situated employees have been regularized by order dated 14.2.2008 but the services of the petitioner have not been regularized in light of the Resolution dated 16.2.2006 of the Finance Department. As per the submission of the petitioner, on the basis of Resolution dated 16.2.2006, every employee who completes or completed 5 years' of satisfactory service, is required to be regularized.
8.3. Learned AGP has submitted that the above submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner are misconceived because it is not true and as such there is no authority given by the said Resolution dated 16.2.2006 to give regular appointment to the post which is not sanctioned on the set up and under the circumstances, respondent No.2 cannot regularize services of the petitioner on completion of 5 years' satisfactory work and thus the employees who had been appointed on sanctioned post on the set up of respondent No. 2, the benefit of Resolution dated 16.2.2006 was given to them and it cannot be said that similarly situated employees have been regularized by order dated 14.2.2008 but the services of the petitioner only has not been regularized. Moreover, referring to the document at Annexure 'C' at pages No. 47 to 51, a Board Meeting No. 24, for the reasons mentioned in it, regular appointment of the petitioner was unanimously negated. From the above it is clear that services of the petitioner cannot be regularized for want of post being sanctioned on the set up of respondent No.2 and as there was no post sanctioned by the Government of AutoCAD Operator on the set up of respondent authority, it is not possible for any one to regularize services of the petitioner. I am conscious of the fact that as per the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner he has challenged document dated 30.10.2010 at Annexure 'A' page No.13, the Office Order terminating the services of the petitioner. But for deciding the said aspect, the above finding on regularization is required to be dealt with for appropriate adjudication of the issue involved in the present petition and to show that there was no alternative for respondent No.2 but to issue the office order dated 30.10.2010.
8.4. On the above points, learned AGP has placed reliance on a decision in the case of State of T.N. And Another v. P.Bala Krishnan and Others (1995 Supp (3) SCC 432) and submitted that it is laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision that in absence of sanctioned posts, direction cannot be or could not be issued to regularize the services as per seniority. I have gone through the same. Relevant para No. 3 reads as under:
“...In the objection filed by the State before the Tribunal, it was stated that there was no sanctioned post on which the respondents could be regularized. It has not been found by the Tribunal that this statement was incorrect or that there were posts of Tabulators sanctioned by the Government on which the respondents were working. In absence of any finding by the Tribunal that there were sanctioned posts of Tabulators, Tribunal was not justified in directing the appellants to regularize the services of the respondents.”
In my view, the above ratio is squarely applicable to the issue involved in the present case.
9. Drawing my attention to the Office Order at Annexure 'A' page No.13, learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that in the said office order it is mentioned that the services of the petitioner was ordered to be put an end to from 31.11.2010 and instead of the said date, it should be 30.11.2010. This shows the pervert mind of respondent No.2 as well as it clearly exhibits the non-application of mind as the respondents anyhow wanted to terminate services of the petitioner. In para 12 of the affidavit-in-reply, the above aspect has been dealt with by respondent No.2 and to me it merely appears to be a typographical error and it should be read as 30.11.2010 and there appears no non-application of mind on the part of respondent No.2 as submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner.
10. Regarding the office order dated 30.10.2010 Annexure 'A' page No.13 issued by the respondent No.2- authority whereby it has been informed to the petitioner that his services as AutoCAD Operator Class III stand terminated w.e.f. 31.11.2010 (sic 30.11.2010), learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that without hearing the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of being heard and without there being any adverse remarks on the service record of the petitioner, the said notice has been issued contrary to the settled legal position of law. He has also submitted that the petitioner has completed 7 years of service honestly, sincerely and to the satisfaction of his higher-ups. During his service tenure there was no complaint against the petitioner and thus the services of the petitioner was unblemished and in spite of that his services were sought to be terminated without any reasons or rhyme which is nothing but illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power.
11. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his argument:
i. Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana and Others [(2010) 1 SCC 126]
ii. Rajinder Kaur (Smt.) v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(1986) 4 SCC 141]
iii. Mazharul Islam Hashmi v. State of UP and Anr. [(1979) 4 SCC 537
iv. Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution
v. Educational Appellate Tribunal [(1999) 7 SCC 332]
v. Sudesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others. [(2005) 11 SCC 525]
vi. Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana and Others [1987 (supp) SCC 295]
12. As referred above, the appointment of the petitioner was on fixed salary, adhoc and contract basis for a period of three months on the post of AutoCAD Operator as referred in the Office Order dated 30.10.2010 at Annexure 'A'. Now, considering the availability of work related to AutoCAD Operator with respondent No.2 the service of the petitioner appears not required. As discussed above, the post of AutoCAD Operator is not a sanctioned post on the set up of respondent No.2. Hence the question of regularization of the same does not arise. It is also clear that post of Surveyor and post of AutoCAD Operator is not the same. Hence for the sake of argument if we believe that one post of Surveyor is vacant then also only because the petitioner has worked as Surveyor, legally he is not entitled to claim a vacant post of Surveyor, he being on adhoc employment as AutoCAD Operator. Now under the above referred circumstances, in my view, respondent No.2 had no option with it but to issue Office Order dated 30.10.2010 Annexure 'A' page No.13 and it had rightly done so. The said action of respondent No.2 cannot be termed as malafide intention or short cut methods for terminating the services of the petitioner. Under the above referred special circumstances, services of the petitioner had been terminated and it being a termination simpliciter, in my view, as laid down in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 432 (supra), opportunity of being heard to the petitioner is not at all required to be given. The decisions on which the learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance are related to termination of service on allegations made against the persons involved and later on termination order was passed without hearing etc. and as such considering the above referred special circumstances involved in the present case, the ratio laid down in the said decisions are not attracted. Hence with a view not to burden the records of this case, without discussing the said decisions individually, as referred above, in my view, the ratio laid down in those cases is not applicable at all in the present case. In these circumstances, none of the fundamental or legal right of the petitioner has been violated because of issuance of the Office Order dated 30.10.2010 Annexure 'A' page No.13 and hence the present Special Civil Application is not maintainable in law and it deserves to be dismissed.
13. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
[G B SHAH, J.]
msp
FURTHER ORDER
After pronouncement of the above order, learned Advocate Mr Apurva Kapadia for the petitioner submits that the ad-interim relief granted earlier by this Court may be extended for a period of one month so as to enable them to approach the higher forum. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ad-interim relief granted earlier shall stand extended upto 30.4.2012.
[G. B. SHAH, J.]
msp