HC order on appointments

AHMEDABAD, July 20: In a judgment of far-reaching consequences, Justice Kundan Singh of Gujarat High Court has held that if a person, app...

AHMEDABAD, July 20: In a judgment of far-reaching consequences, Justice Kundan Singh of Gujarat High Court has held that if a person, appointed to government service on compassionate ground, fails to pass pre-service examination, service of such an appointee cannot be terminated, and he or she cannot be prevented from higher pay-scale, promotion or increment.

The judgment was pronounced in a petition filed by one Mina M Masale, who was appointed junior clerk on compassionate ground by assistant chief police officer in January, 1991. But the petitioner’s service was terminated on October 28, 1993, as she could not pass pre-service departmental examination within the specified three chances. The court directed the state government to reinstate Masale, but rejected plea that she be given back wages and other allowances.

B.S. Supehia, counsel for the petitioner, referred to confidential circular no. BHARAT-1087-MAS dated December 16, 1991 issued by the additional chief secretary, general administration department, in which policy for appointment on compassionate ground was modified. Supehia submitted that policy does not lay down that in case the appointee does not succeed in pre-service departmental examination and training, service of such an appointee shall be terminated.

In absence of any clause for termination of appointees on the ground that the appointee could not pass the pre-service departmental examination, the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated in service and the termination was illegal, it was submitted. It was further submitted that the very purpose of the policy to give job on compassionate ground is defeated when widows who have got job under the scheme lose employment for failure to pass the pre-service departmental examination.

But assistant government pleader C C Bhalja submitted that the confidential letter dated December 16, 1991, of the additional chief secretary to the government officers cannot be relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel.

Besides, the counsel for the state government did not file any counter-affidavit in reply to the petition.