Hence both these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by a companymon judgment.
This Court, after issuing numberice, ordered to maintain the status quo.
The judgment of the learned single Judge suffers from the vice of the number adjudication of the plea that the respondent had been subjected to pick and choose inasmuch as the other officers, who had numberdisposal as per the numberms, were companyfirmed whereas Mr. C.G. Sharma had been terminated and this point was number companysidered by the learned single Judge.
575/2003.
By the order dated 22.9.1994, the respondents services were terminated with immediate effect on account of unsuitability for the post held by him under the recommendations of the High Court.
Hence, Civil Appeal No.4019/2002.
It was also submitted that there were adverse remarks in the Confidential Reports which were companymunicated to the respondent and that the period of probation was extended by one year w.e.f.
We heard Mr. L.Nageswara Rao, learned senior companynsel, assisted by Mrs. Wahi, learned companynsel, appearing for the Registrar of the High Court of Gujarat for the State of Gujarat and Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior companynsel, assisted by Mr. Vikram and Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learned companynsel appearing for Mr. C.G. Sharma.
However, before the Division Bench, three companytentions were raised by the respondent herein as narrated above and the judgment was delivered on that basis.
The said order was challenged in Special Civil Application No.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.575 OF 2003 Dr. AR.
Aggrieved by the above judgment and final order, the Registrar of the High Court of Gujarat and the State of Gujarat preferred S.L.P. C No.22808/2001.
The petition was resisted by the Registrar of the High Court pointing out that the respondents case was examined by the High Court and having regard to the fact that the overall performance of the respondent was number satisfactory, the High Court recommended to the State Government on 12.9.1994 to terminate the respondents services with immediate effect on account of unsuitability for the post held by him and accordingly the State Government issued a Notification terminating the respondents services.
Leave was granted on 12.7.2002.
Aggrieved by the findings of the Division Bench in regard to his companytention of deemed companyfirmation, Mr. C.G. Sharma filed Civil Appeal No.
In the result, the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Mr. G. Sharma and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge by holding that the respondent shall be entitled to all companysequential benefits as if the termination order had never been passed subject to the adjustment of the emoluments drawn by him as an employee of the High Court Staff.
It was further companytended that the respondent was originally serving as an Assistant in the Establishment of the High Court and upon termination of his services as a Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, he has been taken back by the establishment of the High Court with effect from 27.9.1994.
17.6.1993.
Lakshmanan, J. The above two appeals were filed by the Registrar of the High Court of Gujarat and Mr. C.G. Sharma respectively against the final judgment and order dated 5.9.2001 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No.1721/1999 in Special Civil Application No.11218/1994 whereby the High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Mr. C.G. Sharma respondent in A.No.4019/2002 and appellant in C.A.No.575/2003 and directed that Mr. C.G.Sharma Shall be entitled to all the companysequential benefits as if the termination order had never been passed.
He joined his duties on 29.6.1991.
Both these appeals raised companymon question of law about the interpretation of the provisions of sub rule 4 of Rule 5 of the Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Rules regarding the power of the Government to extend the period of probation.
11218 of 1994 on various grounds, more particularly, on the ground that two years period of probation having expired, the respondent must be deemed to have been companyfirmed on the post of Civil Judge Junior Division and, therefore, the respondents services companyld number have been terminated without holding a departmental enquiry.
During the subsequent period also, the respondent was companymunicated the adverse remarks for the quarters between 15.6.1993 and 15.5.1994 and that the High Court companysidered the respondents overall performance and on 12.9.1994 recommended to the State Government to terminate the respondents services on the ground of unsuitability for the post.
Being aggrieved, Mr. C.G. Sharma preferred Letters Patent Appeal assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge on three grounds The first ground was that with the expiry of the period of two years of probation in 1993 when the respondent was allowed to companytinue, he stood automatically companyfirmed and that there was numberquestion of termination of his services without holding any enquiry.
Mr. C.G. Sharma, respondent in C.A.No.4019/2002 was appointed as Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class on probation for a period of two years vide Government Notification dated 7.6.1991.
