YUNUS HABIBBHAI TAILI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-1979-12-28
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on December 04,1979

YUNUS HABIBBHAI TAILI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N.H.BHATT - (1.) . These two petitions by two different petitioners the employees in the Collectorate Amreli are directed against the notices terminating their services with effect from 30th November 1976. The notices are Annexure A in both the petitions. Annexure B is also the order that followed the said notices and Annexure C in both the petitions is the respective order of the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner of the special civil application no. 1742 of 1976holds a post-graduate degree in commerce and the petitioner of the special civil application No. 1743 of 1976 holds a post-graduate degree in Arts. Both of them were selected and appointed as Junior Clerks in the Collectorate Amreli on being recruited by the Committee constituted under the Centralised Recruitment Scheme. As many as 65 persons were appointed along with the petitioners. The petitioner of the first petition was topping the list of those selected candidates and the petitioner of the second petition was at Sr. No. 13 in the said select list. The petitioners are sought to be relieved by resort to Rule 33 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules which makes the services of a temporary Government Servant liable to be terminated at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by that authority to the Government servant. The petitioners grievance in these petitions in that discrimination has been practised against them in so far as Government servants far junior to the petitioners were retained in service whereas the petitioners were singled out for this invidious treatment According to them the discrimination is patent because it is nobodys say that the petitioners were found to be unsuitable for being retained in service vis-a-vis those retained.
(2.) The affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Collector Amreli in both these petitions and the only point urged is that Rule 33 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules gives power to the appointing authority to put an end to the services of the Government employee without assigning any reasons and also in terms of the appointment order which is the ingredient of a contract between the employer and the employee. No other ground has been urged though Mr. Shah the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader stated that the Government had some reasons with them not to continue the petitioners in service. For want of any statement made in the record and in the affidavit-in-reply the case is required to be examined and decided only in the light of averments made in the petition and in the affidavit-in-reply.
(3.) were it a case of a private employment the resultant rights and liabilities would squarely be covered by the contract between the parties. However this being a public employment and the employer being the State the constitutional burden on the State not to violate the guarantee of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is there. So the first defence resting on the terms of employment as evidenced by the order of appointment is not available to the respondent.;


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