AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.L. Dave, J.—The petitioner, who was working as a Compounder with respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, is aggrieved upon termination of his
services by order Annexure-A. The petitioner challenged that order before the District Development Officer, who in turn, confirmed the order of
termination by order Annexure-L. The said decision was challenged by the petitioner before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal by preferring
Appeal No. 617 of 1986, which also came to be dismissed by judgment Annexure-Q. Hence, this petition.
If the letters of appointment annexed to the petition are seen, the petitioner''s appointment was for a fixed term and subject to availability of
regularly recruited candidate.
It also emerges from the order of the DDO that the petitioner does not possess requisite qualification to work as a Compounder.
When the petitioner is not qualified, when his appointment is for a fixed term subject to availability of regularly appointed candidate and when his
services are terminated on completion of his term, the petitioner cannot have any cause to be agitated by the order. The petition cannot be
entertained as the order in question does not suffer from any defect.
One more ground for challenge is that there is non-compliance of Rule 33(1)(b) of B.C.S.R.. In this context, it may be noted that this point was
not raised before the Tribunal by the petitioner. That apart, this provision, would not be applicable to the petitioner''s case whose appointment is
for a fixed term, purely adhoc, and subject to final availability of the regularly recruited candidate.
The petition, therefore, must fail and stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. No costs.