B.P. JEEVAN REDDY - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) HEARD counsel for both parties. Leave granted. These appeals filed by the State of Gujarat are directed against the Judgment of a division bench of the Gujarat High court allowing partly a batch of writ petitions filed by respondents 1 to 12. In the year 1985, the government of Gujarat thought it expedient to permit the Chief Minister and other Ministers to appoint persons of their choice in their respective establishments. Respondents 1 to 12 were accordingly appointed in the category OF CLERK/Typists/Director/Peon. The orders of appointment issued to the respondents are identical. The State has placed before us a copy of the Office Order dated 12/07/1985 issued from the General Administration Department, government of Gujarat relating to the appointment of some of the respondents. The order reads as follows: "The following persons are appointed as direct recruits on purely temporary basis in the office of the Chief Minister with effect from 6/07/1985 (after office hours) on the posts shown against their names. Their services shall be liable to be terminated at any time without giving any notice or assigning any reasons. This appointment is for a limited period up to the tenure of Minister's establishment. They will not get any right for absorption in regular cadres of Sachivalaya and they will have to furnish an undertaking to this effect. JUDGEMENT_226_3_1992Html1.htm 2. They will have to furnish physical Fitness certificate from the Civil Surgeon immediately. Out of the above, those appointed on Class III posts, are not eligible for special pay whereas those appointed on Class IV posts are eligible to get special pay as per rules."
(3.) IN December 1989, a new government came into office following the General Elections to the Legislative Assembly. With the exit of the Ministers in whose establishments the respondents were appointed, the respondents were also issued orders of termination with effect from December 18, 1989. The orders of termination are dated 10/12/1989 and De 11/12/1989. Aggrieved by the said orders of termination the respondents Filed a batch of writ petitions in the Gujarat High court claiming that they are entitled to be absorbed as permanent employees in the Service of the State of Gujarat. Alternatively they contended that the impugned orders of termination are bad being contrary to Rule 33 of Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959, as also S. 25-F of the INdustrial Disputes Act. Having filed the writ petitions, they moved application for staying the operation of the termination orders. The Gujarat High court directed the status quo to be maintained which implied their continuance in Service. The State, however, carried the matter to this court which vacated the said orders, with the result that the respondents went out of office. The respondents' case before the High court of Gujarat was that notwithstanding the terms of their appointment orders they have a right to continue in service. They submitted that they served different ministers from time to time (as per the particulars supplied by them) and that they were really employed on account of their past experience. They relied upon certain instances in the composite State of Bombay where similarly appointed persons were absorbed in government service. They invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution besides Rule 33 of Bombay Civil Service Rules. The State, on the other hand, relied upon the terms of their appointment and contended that their appointment was contractual in nature, coterminous with the tenure of the Minister concerned under whom and at whose instance they were appointed. They have no right to claim absorption or any other right. They must go along with their Ministers, it was submitted.;