Case: P.C. Patel And Ors Vs. Smt. T.H. Pathak And Ors

have been examined by the High Court and it has given satisfactory reasons for taking the view that this was not so. It will be enough to say that the Dircctorate of Civil Supplies (Accounts) was not included in appendix B to the Scheme which formed part of the resolution dated November 21, 1960 by which certain posts were brought within the purview of the Public Service Commission. It has in fact been admitted in the affidavit of K.K. Joshipura, Under Secretary to the State Government, dated September 4, 1974, that it was "true the office of the D.C.S.(A) was not under the purview of the Gujarat Public Service Commission at the time of the appointment of the petitioners." There is therefore nothing wrong with the view which has prevailed with the High Court that the Directorate did not come under the purview of the Public Service Commission until March 1, 1969.3. As regards the Centralised Recruitment Scheme and the resolution of January 21, 1963, the High Court has again rightly held that the resolution applied to recruitment of clerks in district and regional offices and as the Directorate of Civil Supplies (Accounts) was not such an office, the Scheme did not apply to it. We have gone through the other resolution dated July 9, 1964, which modified the Scheme, but here again the High Court has rightly taken the view that merely because of use of the expression "state cadre", it could not be said that the modified scheme was made applicable to the Directorate. We have gone through the whole of the Scheme and we have no doubt that it governed recruitment to district and regional offices, and there is no justification for the argument that it become applicable for recruitment of clerks in the Directorate of Civil Supplies (Accounts) as well. As it is, nothing has been shown to justify the view taken by the State Government that the initial appointments of the writ petitioners were irregular and had to be regularised in accordance with the provisions of rule 29 of the Rules. The rule provides as follows, --"29. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the following eases shall be regularised in the manner shown below in relaxation of their upper age, provisions of Recruitment Rules concerned and/or rules for pre-service training made by Government in this behalf to the extent indicated below:--(1) (a) Persons initially recruited otherwise than through the Gujarat Public Service Commission, or Centralized Recruitment Scheme, as clerks, clerk-typists or typists in the offices to which the Rules apply, and who have rendered not less than 2 years continuous service, as clerk or clerk-typist or typist, as the case may be, as on 31st December, 1968 in one or more offices and who are continuing in Government service as clerks, clerk-typists or typists, as the case may be, on the date of this notification or such persons whose names are kept on the Waiting List for provision al appointment for the reason that they had to be discharged for want of posts even though they had rendered 2 years continuous service as on 31st December, 1968 shall be required to appear at the special interview and/or the special typing test to be held for them for their selection for appointment to the post of clerk, clerk-typist or typist, as the case may be."4. Then follow the other sub-rules with which we are not concerned. The writ petitioners were initially recruited otherwise than through the Gujarat Public Service Commission and the Centralised Recruitment Scheme and they had rendered not less than two years continuous service as clerk, clerk-typists or typists by December 31, 1968, but, as would appear from the history of their service, it could not be said that they were continuing in Government service as clerks, clerk-typists or typists on April 17, 1970, which was the date of the notification of the Rules. The State Government therefore again erred in thinking that their service was governed by rule 29(1) (a). So when the appointments of the writ petitioners were not irregular, and they were not continuing in Government service as clerks, clerk-typists or typists on April 17. 1970, rule 30 of the Rules was also not applicable to them and it was not permissible for the authorities concerned to determine their allotment and seniority under that rule. The view taken by the High Court is therefore quite justified and does not call for interference. The write petitioners had put in several years of service, and had received promotions from time to time. Their appointments were however temporary all through. It appears that the State Government thought of amelior ating their lot for that reason and attempted to do so by making the aforesaid rule 29 of the Rules. But, as has been shown, in doing so the State Government laboured under the impression that the initial appointments of the writ petitioners were irregular, and had to be regularised. As this was not a correct premise, and as rule 29 is not really applicable to the writ petitioners for the reasons mentioned above, it would perhaps be advisable for the SLate Government to re-examine the whole matter and to take appropriate action to give effect to their intention of ameliorating the lot of the writ petitioners. That is however not a matter for this Court to decide. The High Court was therefore not justified in directing that the seniority of the writ petitioners should be computed on the basis that "their services with effect from the respective dates of their joining service as Clerks in the Directorate of Civil Supplies (Accounts) were regular and in accordance with law." As it would have been enough for the High Court to say that the State Government, may reexamine the question of fixing the seniority of the writ petitioners and to take appropriate action to ameliorate their lot as temporary employees, the operative part of the impugned judgment of the High Court is modified to this extent.5.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Then follow the other sub-rules with which we are not concerned. The writ petitioners were initially recruited otherwise than through the Gujarat Public Service Commission and the Centralised Recruitment Scheme and they had rendered not less than two years continuous service as clerk, clerk-typists or typists by December 31, 1968, but,  as would appear from the history of their service, it could not be said that they were continuing in Government service as clerks, clerk-typists or typists on April 17, 1970, which was the date of the notification of the Rules. The State Government therefore again erred in thinking that their service was governed by rule 29(1) (a). So when the appointments of the writ petitioners were not irregular, and they were not continuing in Government service as clerks, clerk-typists or typists on April 17. 1970, rule 30 of the Rules was also not applicable to them and it was not permissible for the authorities concerned to determine their allotment and seniority under that rule. The view taken by the High Court is therefore quite justified and does not call for interference. The write petitioners had put in several years of service, and had received promotions from time to time. Their appointments were however temporary all through. It appears that the State Government thought of amelior ating their lot for that reason and attempted to do so by making the aforesaid rule 29 of the Rules. But, as has been shown, in doing so the State Government laboured under the impression that the initial appointments of the writ petitioners were irregular, and had to be regularised. As this was not a correct premise, and as rule 29 is not really applicable to the writ petitioners for the reasons mentioned above, it would perhaps be advisable for the SLate Government to re-examine the whole matter and to take appropriate action to give effect to their intention of ameliorating the lot of the writ petitioners. That is however not a matter for this Court to decide. The High Court was therefore not justified in directing that the seniority of the writ petitioners should be computed on the basis that "their services with effect from the respective dates of their joining service as Clerks in the Directorate of Civil Supplies (Accounts) were regular and in accordance with law." As it would have been enough for the High Court to say that the State Government, may reexamine the question of fixing the seniority of the writ petitioners and to take appropriate action to ameliorate their lot as temporary employees, the operative part of the impugned judgment of the High Court is modified to this extent.