M.R.SHAH, J. - (1.) As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals, all these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos.11477 of 2015, 10400 of 2012 and 8714 of 2013, original respondents State of Gujarat and others have preferred present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
(3.) The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeals in nutshell are as under: 3.1. That all the original petitioners are / were serving as Female Health Workers. They all belong to Schedule Tribe. That after following due procedure as required, the respective petitioners were duly selected on the basis of their merits and their consent was obtained for posting them under the Rajkot District Panchayat. They were issued letters for reporting before the Chief District Health Officer, Rajkot on 1.9.1992. That a bond/undertaking was obtained from each of the original petitioners that they would be serving under the respondents for a minimum period of three years. That all the original petitioners successfully completed the training of 18 months as Female Health Workers i.e. between 28.8.1992 and 27.2.1994 at the Female Health Worker Training School, Savarkundla. It appears that by letter dated 10.11.1995, the original respondent No.1Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Gandhinagar and thereafter by letter dated 27.11.1995, the original respondent No.2Commissioner, Health, Medical, Services and Medical Education Department, Gandhinagar, granted permission to fill up the posts of the Female Health Workers, Class III, under the various District Panchayats on adhoc basis. Accordingly, permission was granted to fill up 53 posts under the Rajkot District Panchayat. That the Chief District Health Officer, Rajkot issued appointment orders dated 26.12.1995 to the 53 Female Health Workers, including the present petitioners, in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500. All of them, accordingly joined the duties and started working. Their G.P.F accounts were also opened as the service is pensionable. That all of them were paid regularly annual increments and their pay-scale has been revised from time to time in accordance with the Fifth Pay Commission as well as the Sixth Pay Commission. That as such they completed more than 17 years of their services. 3.2. It appears that one of the terms and conditions of the appointment was that they would have to undergo regular selection process. It appears that on account of administrative exigency, the regular appointment process could not undertaken. Therefore, the District Development Officer, Rajkot submitted a proposal for regularizing the services of said Female Health Workers by his letter dated 8.9.2008, addressed to the State Government. That the State Government, after due consideration of the proposal passed a Government Resolution dated 25.2.2009, regularizing the services of the Female Health Workers. It appears that the approval was granted in exercise of the powers under Rule 20 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1995 framed by way of a Notification dated 7.7.1998. Thus, the services of the original petitioners were made regular. That their services were regularized by exempting them from undergoing regular recruitment process. 3.3. It further appears that on 6.6.2010, the Gujarat Panchayat Services Selection Board issued an advertisement in the local newspapers for recruitment of the Female Health Workers. That the respective petitioners seems to have been confused about the same and they were under the dilemma whether they should apply pursuant to the said advertisement or not. Therefore, Chief District Health Officer, Rajkot by his letter dated 7.6.2010 made it clear that the 46 Female Health Workers, whose services were regularized by the State Government by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 25.2.2009 were exempted from going through such recruitment process and were told that it was not necessary for them to apply pursuant to the said advertisement. It appears that thereafter the respective original petitioners claimed highergrade pay-scale on completion of 9 years service, in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994, but the same was denied. They, therefore, filed a Special Civil Application No. 8778/11 before this Court. The said petition came to be disposed of with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioners. The representation was rejected, which led to filing of the SCA No. 2152/12. The said petition also thereafter came to be disposed of vide order dated 15.02.2012. 3.4. It appears that in the meantime, the Division Bench of this Court delivered a judgment dated 20.7.2010, in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 85/10 in SCA No. 8611/09, by which, the Division Bench dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the SCA No.8611 of 2009, by which, the learned Single Judge rejected the claim of some other Female Health Workers who claimed equality in the matter of relaxation from the requirement of passing through the duly prescribed selection process. That the learned Single Judge dismissed the aforesaid Special Civil Application by observing that such other Female Health Workers cannot claim the parity and cannot claim the regularization as they were appointed on ad hoc and temporary basis for 11 months. The Division Bench also directed that the appointment of Female Workers must be after following due procedure as required and there is no question of any relaxation. While dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench observed in para 14, which reads as under: "14. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion it emerges that appointments of the appellants petitioners have been made without following the prescribed procedure and such irregular appointments cannot be directed to regularized. The Act of regularizing such irregularly made appointments would amount to multiplying the irregularity. As noted above, such irregular appointment and the practice of subsequently regularizing such irregular appointments, deprive several hundred of other qualified and eligible persons and thereby violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the relief prayed for cannot be granted." 3.5. It appears that thereafter relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court and considering the observations made by the Division Bench in its judgment and order dated 20.07.2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 85/10, all of sudden the State Government passed an order dated 6.4.2013, terminating the services of the petitioners herein, by cancelling the Government Resolution dated 25.2.2009. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the subsequent Government Resolution / order dated 06.04.2013 terminating their services by canceling earlier Government Resolution dated 25.02.2009, the original petitioners whose services were as such already regularized earlier in the year 2009 preferred aforesaid Special Civil Application before the learned Single Judge. That by impugned common judgment and order the learned Single Judge has allowed the aforesaid Special Civil Applications and has quashed and set aside the Government Resolution dated 06.04.2013 by observing that order dated 06.04.2013 terminating the services of the original petitioners was in breach of principles of natural justice and that on misinterpretation of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 20.07.2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 85/10 inasmuch as the Division Bench in the aforesaid decision did not direct the department to terminate the services of those Female Health Workers whose services are already earlier regularized. 3.6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 23.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos.11477 of 2015, 10400 of 2012 and 8714 of 2013 , the original respondents State of Gujarat and others have preferred present Letters Patent Appeals. ;