Monikaben Laljibhai Prajapati vs State of Gujarat and Others

Honourable Mr. Justice S.R. Brahmbhatt

Heard Shri K.B. Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sh. Rahul Dave, learned AGP for the respondent no. 1 and 5. On 13.12.2012, this Court had heard the matter extensively. During the course of submissions, on the part of learned AGP, he made a request for adjournment only upto 20.12.2012 as in his view, the existing affidavit filed on behalf of respondents did not contain extensive reasoning or reply and that affidavit was required to be supplemented by further affidavit. He ensured that affidavit was to be filed, would be filed in time with a copy to other side and court may finally decide the matter on 20.12.2012.

Shri K.B. Pujara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though did not oppose the request but submitted that extensive hearing has taken place and petitioner has taken plea before this Court that there was admittedly breach of principle of natural justice before bringing about the termination of the service of the petitioner and no authorities, either the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board (hereinafter to be referred as GPSSB for the sake of brevity) i.e. respondent no. 5 or the appointing authority i.e. respondent no. 3 to 4 have ever afforded any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and hence, on the ground of blatant breach of principle I of natural justice, this petition requires to be allowed and/or else there may be some mandatory order of reinstatement. The petitioner is not being heard on account of such delay. Shri Pujara''s submissions contained the hardship incurred by the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner and change in situation on account of the petitioner''s selection and appointment as such, the Court elaborately recorded the submissions as to how the petitioner''s husband had to incur forfeiture of his further opportunity in his career as he wanted to be with the petitioner at place of her appointment. All these factors work as estoppel against the high handed action of the respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner after 10 months period from the date of appointment after her due selection by the selecting agency.

This Court did not grant mandatory reliefs at this stage but cautioned the respondent that if the matter was not taken up for hearing or it was not disposed of finally, then it would be open to the counsel for the petitioner to press for mandatory interim relief in the light of material available on record and the matter was adjourned to 20.12.2012.

Sh. Rahul Dave, learned AGP requested for taking up the matter after 02:30 pm so as to receive proper instructions qua hearing aspect by GPSSB of the candidates who are likely to be affected on account of revision in the selected list.

Sh. Rahul Dave, learned AGP states under the instructions of Sh. N.L. Pujara, Secretary, Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board who has been duly authorized by the Chairman, GPSSB, to state before this Court that Board is keeping in abeyance its subsequent recommendation on revised selection list, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties till Board affords and hears the affected candidates and all interested on the exercise of revision of select list. The Board would issue notices to the affected candidates giving them an opportunity of being heard before effecting and carrying out the revision in the list. In view of the statement, Court may pass appropriate order.

At this stage, it is required to be noted that the termination of services of the petitioner was based upon the recommendations on account of revision of the select list and hence, the said termination would also now not survive as the Board has on its own accord stated before this Court that the recommendations after revision of the select list is kept in abeyance and Board is to decide representations and objections from the affected candidates. In light of this, the termination order passed by DDO, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard is also required to be quashed and set aside and petitioner is required to be ordered to be reinstated. This order of termination is being quashed only on account of fact that the said order was passed without affording of any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and when the Secretary of the Board has clearly stated before this Court that the recommendations of the Board based whereupon the termination order was passed, is itself ordered to be kept in abeyance. The Court while quashing the order does not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter of the either side.

In the result, the termination order impugned in this petition is quashed and set aside and aforestated petitioner is to be reinstated. This quashment of the order of termination is pure solely on account of the statement made by and on behalf of GPSSB and it is not on account of any opinion on merits expressed by the Court. Though, the impugned order of termination otherwise also did merit quashment as it was passed without affording of any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. It goes without saying that in case of any adverse order is passed, it would be open to the petitioner and other affected candidate to challenge the same in accordance with law.

Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned advocate submitted that the DDO passed the order based upon the instructions received on revised list and Court may pass appropriate order. DDO was left with no choice but to pass appropriate order.

Learned counsel Sh. K.B. Pujara submits that the petitioner will cooperate in the hearing process.

On account of the reinstatement and on account of keeping on behalf of the instructions by the Board, no rights or equities are created in favour of or against any of the parties. Petition is disposed of. I Direct service permitted.