Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. - (1.) The above two appeals were filed by the Registrar of the High Court of Gujarat and Mr. C.G. Sharma respectively against the final judgment and order dated 5-9-2001 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1721/1999 in Special Civil Application No. 11218/1994 whereby the High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Mr. C.G. Sharma - respondent in C.A. No. 4019/2002 and appellant in C.A. No 575/2003 and directed that Mr. C.G. Sharma shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits as if the termination order had never been passed. Aggrieved by the findings of the Division Bench in regard to his contention of deemed confirmation, Mr. C.G. Sharma filed Civil Appeal No. 575/2003.
(2.) Both these appeals raised common question of law about the interpretation of the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) regarding the power of the Government to extend the period of probation. Hence both these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(3.) Mr. C.G. Sharma, respondent in C.A. No. 4019/2002 was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class on probation for a period of two years vide Government Notification dated 7-6-1991. He joined his duties on 29-6-1991. By the order dated 22-9-1994, the respondents services were terminated with immediate effect on account of unsuitability for the post held by him under the recommendations of the High Court. The said order was challenged in Special Civil Application No. 11218 of 1994 on various grounds, more particularly, on the ground that two years period of probation having expired, the respondent must be deemed to have been confirmed on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and, therefore, the respondents services could not have been terminated without holding a departmental enquiry. The respondent also invoked the principles of natural justice by contending that opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to him before terminating his services. It was also contended before the learned single Judge that the respondent had tried to the best of his capacity to dispose of the cases and that many others who had no disposal as per the norms were confirmed in the post but because of the pick and choose approach the respondents services came to be terminated.;