Pareshkumar M. Parmar vs State of Gujarat and 2

Honourable Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri

By way of this Appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 15.7.2099 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6898 of 2009, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.

The facts in brief are that the petitioner belongs to SC community, is handicapped having 90% disability, had completed Master of ITI course. Petitioner was appointed as Apprentice at LG. Hospital, Ahmedabad. After successful completion of training the petitioner was required to be absorbed with the respondent Corporation on the vacant post of Clerk cum Computer Operator but no chance was given to the petitioner. Representation of the petitioner failed, informing whenever there are availability of vacancies, he can apply for the same. The said reply is far from truth because as per the information of the petitioner, the respondent Corporation have already filled up the vacancies without following any procedure of law by giving employment to the known persons of elected corporators or for other influential candidates. Further, the Corporation has filled up various vacancies without following due procedure of law. This is a clear case of denial and adopting illegal practice of filling up vacancies by back door entry. There were 80vacancies reserved for physically handicapped and 27 vacancies even in the LG hospital where the petitioner was working. Such practice of appointment through back door is illegal and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been absorbed with the respondent Corporation. The petitioner belongs to SC community and physically 90% handicapped having registered his name with Employment Exchange. The petitioner has completed one year''s service as trainee with AMC. As per the rules and instructions the candidates who completes the apprentice course with Government institutions are sent to various institutions as apprentice and they are to be considered for absorption in the institutions. There were vacancies available with the respondent Corporation for Computer Operator cum clerk the post on which the petitioner had independently performed duties for one year where the petitioner was paid stipend of Rs. 950/-per month. As the petitioner was not absorbed in regular post, he addressed a representation to the respondent Corporation. However, he was not absorbed. Hence, the petitioner filed the petition before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is claiming his right pursuant to the appointment under Apprenticeship Act to the vacancies which were available with the respondent Corporation. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. Therefore, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has filed the present Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others, and Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. N. Hargopal and Others, While considering the case of the appellant, the learned Single Judge has observed in paragraphs 11,12 and 13 as under:

Under the circumstances, merely because the petitioner has completed apprenticeship successfully and/or merely because there are certain posts vacant, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be appointed and/or he should be given preference in the appointment from retrospective date.

It is also the case on behalf of the petitioner that as certain other posts are filled up by back-door entry and/or illegally, the petitioner shall be appointed from retrospective date. First of all, there are no particulars given with respect to the respective appointments alleged to have been made illegally and/or by back-door entry. Unless and until specific particulars and instances are given, on the basis of such vague averments, the petitioner cannot be granted appointment as prayed for. Even otherwise, assuming that some illegal appointments are made, in that case also, the petitioner cannot claim that he should also be given similar benefits and/or the petitioner cannot claim appointment on the aforesaid ground.

Now, so far as the observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner are concerned, it is ultimately for the appropriate authority and/or department to frame its own policy, but merely because the petitioner has completed the apprenticeship successfully, the petitioner cannot claim appointment as a matter of right, unless there is a specific policy.

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court and in view of the observations made by the learned Single Judge and more particularly in paragraph12 of the judgment, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, the Appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it will be open for the appellant to apply as and when post is advertised by the respondent Corporation, if he is eligible for the same.