LPA/116/1989 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 116 of 1989 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4430 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT & HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to civil judge ? ========================================================= V K BAROT - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MRS SANGEETA N PAHWA for Appellant MRS ML SHAH AGP for Respondents ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER 20th February, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) This Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the LPA/116/1989 2/3 JUDGMENT Letters Patent, arises from the judgment and order dated 12th December, 1988 made by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4430 of 1987. Pursuant to his selection for appointment as Gujarati Stenographer [Grade-II], the appellant was, by Order dated 16th June, 1986 made by the Deputy Director & Ex Officio Deputy Secretary, Education Department, appointed on probation as Gujarati Stenographer [Grade-II] in the pay scale of Rs. 475- 800 in the Office of the Commissioner Mid-Day Meal Scheme. By Order dated 22nd May, 1987 made by the Director, Mid-Day Meal Scheme & Deputy Secretary, Education Department, the service of the appellant was terminated on the ground of unsuitability. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred above Special Civil Application No. 4430 of 1987 under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. According to the appellant, the impugned order of termination of probation and discharge from service was punitive in nature and that it was vitiated by mala fides. The learned Single Judge held that the impugned order was discharge simplicitor on the ground of unsuitability made in consonance with LPA/116/1989 3/3 JUDGMENT the terms and conditions of appointment. The allegations of mala fide did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was also pleased to hold that the impugned order was discharge simplicitor and that it was not punitive in nature. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed. The parties will bear their own cost. {Ms. R.M Doshit, J.} {K.M Thaker, J.} Prakash*