SCA/5104/1982 of T.V. BELAR Vs DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, on 12 December 1995

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Heard the learned counsel.R

petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging thememorandum annexure-D dated 9th November, 1982 by which thepetitioners were directed to pass the competitiveexamination to be held by the Gujarat Public ServiceCommission for the post of Stenographer Grade II within acertain period as provided therein.

2. The matter had come up for hearing before this Courton3-12-1982 when notice was issued to the respondents. On17-1-1983 rule was issued and ad-interim relief in terms ofpara 19(B) was granted till further orders. Para 19(B) ofthe petition reads as under:

"19(B) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the memorandum at annexure "D" to the petition."

3. Petitioner No.1 had entered Government service onDecember 30, 1959 and petitioner No.2 on 25th June, 1960.Both were initially appointed as typist in the office ofCollector and Divisional Commissioner respectively. Lateron they were selected as Stenographer (Gujarati) Grade IIIand were appointed as such. Petitioner No.1 was appointedas Stenographer Grade II in the office of the DivisionalCommissioner, Revenue Department, in the year 1963. Thoughat one point of time he was reverted from that post, he wasagain appointed on the post with effect from 1-7-1965 andsince that date he is continuously working on the postwithout any interruption. Petitioner No.2 was appointedStenographer Grade II in the office of the DistrictDevelopment Officer, Junagadh in the year 1962. Likepetitioner No.1, he was also reverted to the lower post inthe year 1963 and again he was appointed as StenographerGrade II and is continuously working as such.

4. The petitioners have come up with the case thatmerely because subsequently the offices in which they areworking as Stenographer Grade II have been brought withinthe purview of the Gujarat Public Service Commission,it israther very harsh and unreasonable on the part of therespondents to ask the petitioners to pass the examinationof Stenographer Grade II conducted by Gujarat Public ServiceCommission. The petitioners stated that they are working onthe post of Stenographer Grade II for more than nineteenyears. In para 2 of the writ petition the petitioners havecome up with the case that the respondents have regularised the services of the persons working as Stenographer Grade IIand dispensed with the requirement of passing theexamination conducted by G.P.S.C.

5. During the course of argument it is admitted by thecounsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondentsthat petitioner No.1 has already retired from service. Sofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, it has been admitted bythe counsel that he is due for retirement within a shortperiod.

6. From the affidavit of respondents dated 16thMarch,1983 it gives out that the services of stenographersmentioned in para 2 of the petition were regularised withoutpassing the competitive examination for the said postconducted by the Gujarat Public Service Commission. It hasbeen stated that as a matter of leniency it was decided toregularise their appointments under Government Resolution,General Administration Department, dated 15th September,1976, despite the fact that such regularisation test is notheld now. It has further been stated that the Governmenthad regularised the services of irregularlyrecruited/appointed stenographers Garde II on two differentoccasions (i.e. those who had completed two years ofservice on 31st December, 1972 and 1st April, 1976) byamending the rules statutorily. It is not in dispute thatthe petitioners were appointed as Stenographer Grade II inthe year 1963. Though petitioner No.1 was reverted for sometime he has been continuously working on the post since1965. Petitioner No.1 has retired from service andpetitioner No.2 is due to retire in the near future, and itis not the case of the respondents that they would like toinsist now for passing of examination for Stenographer GradeII by the petitioners at this stage.

7. Taking into consideration the facts andcircumstances of the case and particularly the fact that thememorandum annexure-D has been stayed by this Court aboutthirteen years back, and petitioner No.1 has retired andpetitioner No.2 is about to retire from service in the nearfuture, this writ petition is allowed and the memorandumdated 9-11-1982 at annexure-D to the petition is quashed andset aside. However, this decision will not be taken as aprecedent as the petition has been decided in the peculiarfacts and circumstances of this case. Rule made absoluteaccordingly, with no order as to costs.

���........