1. The present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant- original plaintiff to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 09/08/1999 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No. 186/1990 by which the learned appellate Court has allowed the said Appeal preferred by the respondent-original defendant and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 07/08/1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No. 264/1982 by which the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant- original plaintiff granting declaration that the appellant-original plaintiff is a regularly appointed employee of the respondent- original defendant and is working as store keeper and Centralised Recruitment Scheme (CRS) is not applicable to him and he is entitled to be enlisted in the seniority list at appropriate place at appropriate serial number.
2. The appellant-original plaintiff had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 264/1982 against the respondent-original defendant- State of Gujarat for declaration and mandatory injunction to declare that he is a government servant of the respondent- original defendant and is serving as store keeper and therefore, the Centralised Recruitment Scheme (CRS) is not applicable to him and he is regularly recruited candidate. He has also sought mandatory injunction against the respondent-original defendant directing the respondent-original defendant to enter his name in the seniority list dated 16/05/1979 on seniority basis. It was the case on behalf of the appellant-original plaintiff that he was appointed as store keeper under the Filaria Control Programme (FCP) in the office of Junagadh Unit after calling his name from the employment exchange and after following the due procedure as required as Director of Health Service on 01/04/1972. It was the case on behalf of the appellant-original plaintiff that however at the time of appointment, the appellant-original plaintiff was appointed as ad hoc till regularly selected candidates were available. However, he was continued in service till attaining the age of superannuation on 31/12/2008. It was the case on behalf of the appellant-original plaintiff that though he has worked for more than 7 to 9 years (at the time of filing of the suit) his name was not mentioned in the seniority list and, therefore, his case was not considered for promotion alongwith other persons and, therefore, he instituted the suit for the aforesaid reliefs. The learned trial Court by judgment and decree dated 07/08/1990 allowed the said suit in favour of the appellant- original plaintiff and granted declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed for. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh dated 07/08/1990 in Regular Civil Suit No. 264/1982 in dismissing the suit the respondent-original defendant-State of Gujarat preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 186/1990 and by impugned judgment and order dated 09/08/1999 the learned appellate Court has allowed the said Appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court by holding that as the appellant-original plaintiff was appointed as ad hoc he had not right to hold such a post and, therefore, the learned trial Court has materially erred in treating the appellant-original plaintiff as regular employee and granting declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order/decree passed by the learned appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 186/1990 the appellant-original plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Shri Devnani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original plaintiff has vehemently submitted that the learned appellate Court has materially erred in holding that being an ad hoc employee the appellant-original plaintiff had no right to hold the post. It is submitted that as such the appellant-original plaintiff was appointed by calling his name from the employment exchange and after following the due procedure as required and continued for a longer period. It is to be held that he has been appointed on regular basis. It is submitted that as rightly held by the learned trial Court the appellant-original plaintiff could not have been continued as ad hoc for number of years. It is submitted that as the appellant-original plaintiff continued in service may be as an ad hoc for such a long period i.e. from 1972-1979, it cannot be said that the appointment of the appellant-original plaintiff was as a stop gap arrangement. It is further submitted that even the appellant-original plaintiff was also given all other benefits as if he was regular employee such as increment and other benefits and, therefore, it is requested to allow the present Second Appeal.
4. The present Second Appeal is opposed by Shri Mihir Bhatt, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent- original defendant-State of Gujarat. It is submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court is considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court taking a view that as an ad hoc employee, concerned employee has no right to hold the post and, therefore, the learned appellate Court has not committed any error and/or illegality in allowing the Appeal and quashing and setting aside the decree passed by the learned trial Court. It is submitted that merely because the appellant-original plaintiff came to be continued for a longer period he does not acquire any right to hold the post and he could not have been treated as a regular employee. Under the circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the learned appellate Court. Under the circumstances, it is requested to dismiss the present Second Appeal.
5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. It is not in dispute that the appellant-original plaintiff was appointed on purely ad hoc basis and as a stop gap arrangement till regularly selected candidate is available. May be that he might have been appointed as ad hoc after calling his name from the employment exchange but still the said exercise was only for the purpose of appointment as ad hoc and as a stop gap arrangement only. It cannot be disputed that for regular selection and/or appointment, applications are to be invited from other eligible candidates and the appellant-original plaintiff was required to compete with other eligible candidates. The said procedure was not followed at all. Under the circumstances, as rightly held by the learned appellate Court appointment of the appellant-original plaintiff cannot be said to be on regular post and/or basis. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, more particularly, considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and Anr Vs. Dr. Phari Mohan Mishra reported in AIR 1995 SC 974 and in the case of Shri Dhiraj Ghosh Vs. Union of India and Anr reported in 1991 SC 73 and other decisions of this Court considered in paragraph 11 of the judgment and order of the learned appellate Court, it cannot be said that the learned appellate Court has committed any error and/or illegality in allowing the Appeal and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court. Merely because the appellant-original plaintiff came to be continued on ad hoc he does not acquire any right to hold the post on ad hoc basis and to get the seniority etc. and/or promotion. No illegality has been committed by the learned appellate Court, which calls for the interference of this Court. Under the circumstances, the present Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9504/2011
In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, no order in the Civil Application.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji