D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) (Oral) - This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2942 of 2012, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2014.
(2.) Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that earlier rules for regularization were published on 12th August, 2011, which are at Annexure-4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and now the new rules have been published with certain amendments in the original one on 10th January, 2012 which are at Annexure-5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and so far as the amendment dated 10th January, 2012 (Annexure-5) is concerned, there is no specific mentioning about that which clause is amended of the original policy or regulations dated 12th August, 2011 (Annexure-4). Example has been given by the counsel for the appellant that whether clause no. 1 of the amendment dated 10th January, 2012 (Annexure-5) is applicable to Rule 4(g) of the Rules dated 12th August, 2011 (Annexure-4) or not. Similarly, so far as amendment no.2 of amendment dated 10th January, 2012 is concerned, whether it will have any impact upon Rule 4(g) of the earlier Rules dated 12th August, 2011 or not. Thus, there is no clarity that which clause is amended by the amendment dated 10th January, 2012. This is the only point which has been canvassed by the counsel for the appellant.
(3.) Having heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) Policy decision of the regularization has taken place on 12th August, 2011 which is at Annexure-4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. There are various conditions and eligibilities for the regularization. (ii) So far as amendment in the policy which is dated 10th January, 2012 (Annexure-5) is concerned, it appears that certain further limitations have been pointed out in the second policy decision. It ought to be kept in mind that both the policies are to be read conjointly. It ought to be kept in mind that the amended version of the policy which contains clause nos.1 to 8 shall also be part and parcel of the earlier policy dated 12th August, 2011. The latest in point of time which are imposing further restrictions and limitations shall be also kept in mind while implementing policy dated 12th August, 2011. (iii) Even otherwise also, as and when the matter will arise, the decision will be taken by the Government and thereafter, if any employee is aggrieved by the decision or the interpretation of these two policies, he can challenge the decision of the Government in the competent Courts and the competent Courts will decide looking into the facts of the present case. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2942 of 2012 preferred by this appellant. No error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in deciding the said writ petition.;