1. The petitioner, by this petition, has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 30.4.2002 passed by respondent No.2 for termination of his service from the post of Medical Officer (Class II) at Community Health Centre, Jamkalyanpur, District Jamnagar and it is prayed by the petitioner that the petitioner be reinstated in service with full backwages.
2. The short facts are that the petitioner, after completion of 3rd Year MBBS, on account of his bond to serve with the Government in the rural area, was appointed as Medical Officer (ClassII) vide order dated 16.7.1998 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, Health and Medical Service and Medical Education (Health Department) Gandhinagar.
3. On 25.09.2001, the petitioner completed service of 3 years as per the bond. It appears that thereafter on 28.02.2002, on the allegation that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.20 for visiting to the residence of the complainant Ranjitsinh Balubhai Jadeja, there was a trap and the offence was registered against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 30.04.2002 came to be passed for termination of the service of the petitioner. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.
4. I have heard Mr.Bharda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Thakkar, learned AGP for the State.
5. The perusal of the impugned order at AnnexureF shows that it is on two grounds. On is that of the criminal case and found to have been involved in the trap under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the another is that as per the conditions of the bond, as the petitioner has not successfully cleared GPSC, he is not to be continued in service.
6. On the first aspect of criminal case, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that ultimately, the case has resulted into acquittal and the petitioner has been acquitted. On the second aspect of clearance of GSPC, it was submitted by Mr.Bharda that as per the statement made in the petition, GPSC after his appointment has not given any advertisement or has not undertaken any selection process and therefore, if no selection process is undertaken, the condition could not have been insisted by the Government and therefore, he submits that the petitioner's service could not have been terminated. In connection with the criminal case, he submitted that no departmental inquiry has been held and merely because a complaint is filed straightaway, the termination order has been issued and therefore, the petitioner deserves to be reinstated in service.
7. The affidavitinreply has been filed by the Administrative Officer to Additional Director, Health and Medical Service. In the said affidavitinreply, at para 6, it has been stated as under:
“I say that during the period commencing from 16th July, 1998 to 30th April, 2002, G.P.S.C. has recommended names of successful candidates in all three times. I say that during this period, the petitioner was in service.”
8. There is no affidavitinrejoinder by the petitioner to the aforesaid statement made in the affidavitinreply.
9. The order of appointment dated 16.07.1998 (AnnexureA) shows that the appointment was for a period of three years on temporary basis and during the said period, the petitioner had to clear GPSC exam or until regularly selected candidate is available. But the pertinent aspect is that the period specified was whichever is earlier. Therefore, the appointment was for a period of three years subject to the clearance of GPSC exam within that period but whichever is earlier. It is an undisputed position that the petitioner has not undergone regular selection and he was offered appointment for a period of three years on account of the bond executed by him. It is true that the aforesaid period had expired and thereafter also for some time, the petitioner was continued on the same status. But it is not the case of the petitioner that he had cleared any GSPC exam or his name was recommended by GPSC for regular selection. If the termination is considered on the ground that since appointment was for a period of three years and the petitioner has not cleared GPSC during the said period, it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the respondents in not continuing the services of the petitioner. Since the above referred aspect is not satisfied, it appears that it is not required further to examine as to whether the services of the petitioner could be discontinued on account of the complaint filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act or not.
10. I am inclined to take the aforesaid view of no clearance of GPSC exam since the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder stating that the statement of recommendation of the name of the GPSC in the affidavitinreply is incorrect nor the GPSC has been joined as the party.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is meritless. Hence dismissed. Rule discharged.
*bjoy (JAYANT PATEL, J.)