IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 9289 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- SUDHIRBHAI NAGINBHAI SOLANKI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 9289 of 2000 MS SADHANA SAGAR for Petitioner No. 1 MR PRADIP D BHATE A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1 RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 2-3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA Date of decision: 10/03/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has been working as part time sweeper since 24th November, 1993, his service has not been regularized till this date. 1.1. It appears from the record of this petition that he was appointed as part time sweeper on 24th November, 1993. He was working with respondent no. 3. Initially, he was required to work for six hours in a day at the fixed salary of Rs.200=00 per month, but now, with effect from 30th June, 2003, the working hours have been reduced from six hours to only one hour on the monthly salary of Rs.225=00. The petitioner in the meanwhile, had made several requests to his Superior for regularizing his service, but the same were not accepted. By letter dated 4th February, 1998, he had made a request to respondent no. 3 for regularization of his service. However, he did not receive any favourable response inspite of the fact that respondent no.3 was completely satisfied with the work of the petitioner and he had issued certificate to that effect also. Since his request was not accepted by the department, he has now approached this Court. 2. As against that, no affidavit has been filed by the other side and the averments made in the petition remain uncontroverted. 3. The question regarding regularization of service on temporary or part time employee who has put in number of years of service has been considered and decided by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8917 of 1998 and its cognate matters by judgment dated 17th February, 2004. In view of the said judgment, this petition deserves to be allowed with the following directions :- The respondents are, therefore, now required to be directed that irrespective of the Circular of 21st August, 1995, they shall consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on permanent post in Class-IV and if the permanent posts are found vacant, he shall be appointed on the same in accordance with his claim, in the matter of seniority and concerned Regulations and if otherwise, he is not ineligible. Appointment should not be denied on the ground of overage or on the ground that it may amount to giving a back-door entry. This exercise to be carried out as early as possible but in any case not later than 30th May, 2004. If need be, the petitioner can make appropriate representation, which will be considered in light of this judgment and in particular, the direction given therein. The petition is, therefore, partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent no order as to costs. [AKSHAY H. MEHTA, J.] /phalguni/