Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the termination of the petitioner's service by the Director, Social Defence, Gujarat State, via order dated 22.06.2017, on the ground that the petitioner had not passed the CCC examination within the stipulated time period. The petitioner, an employee, filed a writ petition under Articles 14, 19, and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the termination order and for directions to consider her as having passed the CCC exam, with all attendant benefits including promotion, considering her appointment from 19.01.2010. The petitioner argued that the issue was identical to a previously decided case, Special Civil Application No.10011 of 2018, where a coordinate bench had quashed the same termination order for another employee, Smt. R.K. Meda, and that the State had accepted that judgment. The respondent State did not dispute these factual positions. The court analyzed the submissions and found that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by the precedent, noting that the petitioner had continued working without a break in service even after the termination order until a fresh appointment order was issued on 17.07.2017. The court referred to the coordinate bench's judgment, which had interpreted Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 as beneficial and not requiring CCC exam passage in two stages, and relied on observations from a Division Bench in State of Gujarat vs. Kodiyatar Manda Amarabhai. The court held that the termination was invalid, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner all benefits, including considering her service from 19.01.2010, without the need for notional benefits as there was no break in service.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Service - CCC Examination Requirement - Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 - The petitioner's service was terminated for not passing the CCC exam within the stipulated period, but a coordinate bench had already quashed an identical termination order for another employee under the same impugned order. Held that the present petition is squarely covered by the earlier judgment, and the termination order dated 22.06.2017 is quashed and set aside. (Paras 6-9) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 14, 19, 226 of Constitution of India - The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking certiorari and mandamus to quash the termination order and for consequential benefits. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226, finding the termination arbitrary as the petitioner had continued working without break and the issue was covered by precedent. Held that the petition is allowed, directing the respondents to grant all benefits considering the petitioner's service from 19.01.2010. (Paras 2, 9)
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the termination of the petitioner's service for not passing the CCC examination within the stipulated time period is valid, considering an identical case was already decided by a coordinate bench in favor of the similarly situated employee.
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Impugned order dated 22.06.2017 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to grant all benefits to the petitioner considering her service from 19.01.2010.
