BHARUCH DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. PRAKASH LAXMAN KADAM COMPOUNDER
LAWS(GJH)-2014-4-13
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on April 10,2014

BHARUCH DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Appellant
VERSUS
Prakash Laxman Kadam Compounder Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI, J. - (1.) WE have heard Mr. H.S. Munshaw learned advocate for the appellants. Mr. M.J. Mehta learned advocate had appeared for respondent in Civil Application for condonation of delay but he has not filed his vakalatnama and he was on caveat, and therefore, his name is shown.
(2.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6463 of 2004, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. We propose to decide this appeal at the admission stage itself, therefore, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, this appeal is taken up for hearing final disposal.
(3.) THE facts of the case is that the respondent was appointed as compounder on 19.4.1988 after following interview procedure in the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -2040. The appointment order dated 19.4.1988 contains conditions out of which condition no. 5 provides for passing examination to be taken by the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee for the purpose of continuing in service. In the said order, there was no condition of production of certificate of Gujarat State Pharmacy Council. It is the case of the respondent that in the year 1988 -89, though advertisement for regular selection for compounder was issued, however, since he was residing in the Rural Area, he had no knowledge of such advertisement and therefore, could not apply for selection. Thereafter, in the year 1989 -90, 1990 -91,1992 -93, 1995 -96, 1997 -98, advertisements for such purpose were issued, but the same were for people belonging to Adivasi, Harijan and physically handicapped category and it was not for general category candidates and therefore, he could not apply. The petitioner has further averred that in 2003 -3004, an advertisement was issued for general category candidates for the pose of Junior Pharmacist and the respondent applied for the said post on 17.6.2003. The writ petition was amended and the respondent has further stated that the Rules were amended in the year 1998 for the post of compounder and he thereafter applied on 23.11.1998 for registration in Gujarat State Pharmacy Council. The respondent was then given registration certificate by Gujarat State Pharmacy Council on 31.12.2003. The respondent was not qualified for the post of compounder. The respondent has further averred that the respondent had completed 16 years of service and he was not at fault for not passing examination as per the condition no. 5 of the appointment order. It is specific case of the respondent that the services of the respondents were terminated without affording any opportunity of hearing to the respondent.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.