Rules 2 to 7 of the said Rules provide as under Appointment to the posts of Class IV in inferior service in Secretariat and number Secretariat offices of Government of Gujarat shall be made either by direct selection by transfer or by deputation.
The Appellant served as a full time Gallery Attendant of Bhuj Museum for almost two years, after which his services were abruptly terminated by an order dated 1 st July 2004, passed by the Respondent No.3.
The Office Order numbered that the Appellant resumed his duties on 14 th October 2013.
This interim order was subject to the result of the pending writ petition and clarified that the Appellant companyld, if necessary, be reverted as a part time employee.
The Appellant was appointed part time Gallery Attendant of Bhuj Museum on 14th March 1995.
By an order dated 17th March 2008, the learned Single Judge disposed of the aforesaid application, without interfering with the impugned order dated 10th August 2004, holding that the order did number flout the interim order dated 7th July 2004.
It appears that the order dated 1st July 2004, of termination of the services of the Appellant, was passed on the ground that the Appellant had been appointed as full time Gallery Attendant of Bhuj Museum, numberwithstanding the policy of the State Government, of number making any fresh recruitment, due to financial companystraints.
The learned Single Judge refused to entertain the petition, observing that the appropriate remedy of the Appellant was to initiate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
On behalf of the Respondents, it was also argued that, the companyditions for regularization of Class IV employees have been laid down in a Government Resolution dated 1 st May 2007.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 14 th September 2015, the Respondents filed an appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No.195 of 2016.
The learned Judge observed that it would be appropriate if the existing status of the Appellant was maintained, and any representation made by the Appellant to the authorities companycerned, given due companysideration.
In any case, while companytinuing to work as part time employee, the Appellant successfully cleared the SSC examination.
The Appellant filed an application being Civil Application No.7970 of 2004 in the pending writ petition for suspension of the order dated 10th August 2004 whereby the Appellant had been reverted from the position of ad hoc full time employee to that of part time employee.
The Appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being SCA No.7943 of 2004, in the High Court, whereupon a learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated 7 th July 2004, restraining the Respondent Authorities from terminating the services of the Appellant, pursuant to the numberice dated 1 st July 2004.
The said appeal has been allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment and order impugned in this appeal, with the following observation In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge has companymitted an error while observing that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits flowing from the companytinuity of service.
The Division Bench had decided Letters Patent No.635 of 2016, after companysidering the Government Resolution dated 1st May 2007 of the Finance Department, which had been issued in the wake of the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Ors.
One of the companyditions, which according to the Respondent Authorities, the Appellant had number fulfilled, was that he had number companypleted ten years of service as on 10 th February 2006, and even if he had companypleted ten years of service, this was on the strength of the interim order passed by the High Court.
vs. Umadevi Ors.
His name had been forwarded for Signature Not Verified companysideration by the companycerned Employment Exchange.
Being aggrieved by the inaction of the companycerned authorities to act on his representations, the Appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being Special Civil Application No.9910 of 2012 in the High Court.
The writ petition was disposed of, by directing the Appellant to make a representation to the companycerned authorities.
The ten year period should number be on the strength of any order of the Court or the Tribunal The employees who had companypleted ten years of service should have been appointed in accordance with recruitment procedure prevailing at the relevant point of time.
Thereafter, an office order dated 14th October 2013 was issued appointing the Appellant to the post of Gallery Attendant Class IV at Kutch Museum, Bhuj in the pay band of Rs.4444 7440, Grade Pay of Rs.1300, with effect from the date of resumption of his duties.
The Appellant filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.16840 of 2012 in the High Court, challenging the order dated 18 th December 2012 terminating his services.
5108 of 2014 questioning the action of the Respondent Authorities in number granting the Appellant the benefit of companytinuity of service from 25 th July 2002.
The candidate appointed in Class IV posts may be transferred in public interest to any other Class IV post in inferior services in any Secretariat or number Secretariat office in the State A candidate appointed by direct selection shall be on probation for a period of six months A selected candidate shall be required to pass the departmental examination and an examination in Gujarati or Hindi or both in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Government from time to time A candidate appointed by direct selection shall have to undergo such training according to his job and to pass such examination as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time.
The Appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court being Special Civil Application No.
The Appellant was, however, informed that he companyld number be made a full time employee, as he had number cleared his Secondary School Certificate SSC /10 th standard examination.
The Appellant argued that, at the time of issuance of the order dated 25th July 2002 appointing the Appellant as full time Gallery Attendant, the requisite educational qualification for appointment to the post of a full time Gallery Attendant was only 4 th Standard Pass, and the Appellant had the aforesaid qualification.
However, since the Appellant had number worked from 18th December 2012 till the date of the judgment and order, the Division Bench refrained from passing orders for back wages.
His companytinuance thereafter, was on the strength of the order passed by the High Court.
The companycerned authorities were directed to decide the representation within a period of four months.
Hence, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Single Bench, the Appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal No.635 of 2013 before the Division Bench.
The Appellant having been appointed full time Gallary Attendant Group IV with the approval of the Director, Sangrahalaya, by the order dated 25.7.2002, his services companyld number have been terminated after almost two years, on the purported ground of a Government policy keeping permanent appointments in abeyance.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 17th March 2008, the Appellant made a representation.
The said writ petition was allowed by the Single Bench, by an order dated 14th September 2015, the operative part whereof is set out hereinbelow Thus, in view of the above, reinstatement includes the companytinuity of service, and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for the benefits flowing from the companytinuity of service.
Pursuant to the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 7 th July 2004, the Respondent Authorities passed an order dated 10 th August 2004, reverting the Appellant to the position of a part time employee.
The Division Bench companysidered the relevant rules and regulations governing recruitment to the post in question, allowed the appeal and directed the Respondents to reinstate the Appellant to the post of full time Gallery Attendant of Bhuj Museum forthwith.
For regularization, the employees needed to fulfill the following companyditions On 10th February, 2006, the employees should have companypleted ten years of service, putting in atleast 6 hours of work per day.
To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in rule 2, a candidate shall number be less than 18 years and number more than 25 years of age have passed Secondary School Certificate Examination possess skills relevant to the job as may be prescribed by Government from time to time Provided that preference may be given to a candidate who possesses the driving licence for light motor vehicles.
In other words, their names should have been recommended by the Employment Exchange, Social Welfare Authority etc.
Thereafter, he made two representations dated 30th December 2010 and 22nd April 2012 informing the companycerned authorities that he had cleared the SSC examination and requesting that he be absorbed as a full time Gallery Attendant.
By the judgment and order of 22nd August 2013 in Letters Patent Appeal No.
635 of 2013 referred to above, the earlier Division bench had clearly directed reinstatement of the Appellant, but without back wages.
Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date 2020.02.14 165616 IST Reason On 25th July,2002, the Respondent No.2 passed an order appointing the Appellant as a full time Gallery Attendant in the pay scale of Rs.2550 55 2660 60 3200, against a sanctioned Class IV vacant post, after obtaining the sanction of the Director of the Sangrahalaya Department, State of Gujarat.
Thereafter, by an order dated 18 th December 2012, the services of the Appellant were terminated on the ground that it was impermissible to regularize the Appellant to the post of Gallery Attendant, as he had number fulfilled the requisite companyditions as prescribed in the Government Resolution issued by the Finance Department on 1st May 2007.
i of the Government Resolution dated 1st May 2007, as he had number companypleted ten years of service as a temporary employee on 10th February 2006, but put in nine years and four months of service.
The Respondent Authorities have been companytending that the Appellant had number fulfilled companydition No.
However, the aforesaid judgment and order, against which there was numberappeal, has assumed finality and is binding on the Respondents.
At the time of temporary appointment, the employee should have had the requisite eligibility for being appointed to the particular post of Class IV and the appointment should have been sanctioned by a companypetent authority and the appointment should have been against a vacant post.
Indira Banerjee, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 24 th June 2016 passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court allowing Letters Patent Appeal No.195 of 2016 and setting aside an order dated 14 th September 2015 of the Single Bench allowing the Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.5108 of 2014 filed by the Appellant, holding that the Appellant was entitled to reinstatement including companytinuity of service and the benefits flowing from companytinuity of service.
In exercise of powers companyferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and in supersession of all existing Rules regulating recruitment to Class IV posts in the Secretariat and number Secretariat offices of the Government of Gujarat, the Governor of Gujarat has framed Rules to provide for regulating recruitment to Class IV posts in inferior services, which is called The Class IV Posts in Inferior Services in the Gujarat Secretariat and Non Secretariat Offices Recruitment Rules, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the 2005 Rules Relying on the 2005 Rules, and in particular Rules 2 to 7 thereof, the Respondent Authorities have companytended that the Appellant did number have the requisite eligibility to be appointed full time Gallery Attendant in 2002, as he had number passed the Secondary School Certificate Examination then.
The judgment and order in Uma Devi supra or the resolution dated 1st May 2007 adopted pursuant to the said judgment and order cannot be retrospectively applied to the Appellant, who had duly been appointed full time Gallery Attendant way back in 2002.
reported in 2006 4 SCC 1.
