Gujarat High Court
Anirudhsinh Kanaksinh Gadhavi vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 14 December, 2023
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20766/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20766 of 2023
==========================================================
ANIRUDHSINH KANAKSINH GADHAVI
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR NINAD P SHAH(10911) for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR H NAIDU for Respondent No.1.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 14/12/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned Advocate Mr.Hameesh Naidu for the respondent Corporation appears and requests this Court that he may be permitted to appear for respondent Corporation and the Registry may be directed to accept his vakalatnama for respondent Corporation. Permission is granted. Registry is directed to accept vakalatnama of learned Advocate Mr.Naidu for the respondent Corporation.
2. Heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Ninad Shah for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr.Naidu for respondent Corporation.
3. Learned Advocate Mr.Naidu has tendered an affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent Corporation, which is taken on record. He also tenders a copy of the Government Resolution dated 8.11.1989, which is also taken on record.
Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 16 20:40:33 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20766/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/12/2023 undefined
4. By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia questioned non- response of the respondent Corporation to an application by the present petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the petitioner for further participating in the recruitment process for the post of Deputy Regional Fire Officer, Class-II advertised by Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) vide Advertisement No.14/2021-22.
5. Considering the submissions made by learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mehta for the petitioner, it would appear that while the petitioner had participated in the selection process, and as per the terms of the advertisement itself, the petitioner, after having been called for interview, had requested the respondent Corporation to grant an NOC to the present petitioner and whereas the respondent Corporation not having responded to such request, the present petition is filed.
5.1. It also requires to be mentioned here that intimation to the present petitioner to appear in the interview programme had been declared by GPSC vide intimation dated 5.12.2023 and whereas the petitioner had immediately requested the Corporation to grant NOC and whereas since the date of interview is scheduled on 15.12.2023 i.e. tomorrow, this Court had issued urgent notice dated 11.12.2023 making it returnable yesterday and at the request of learned Advocate Mr.Naidu, the matter was ordered to be listed today for enabling the respondent to tender reply.
5.2. It also requires to be mentioned here that the petitioner was facing a show-cause notice from the respondent Corporation, more particularly show-cause notice having been issued by the Vigilance Department of the respondent Corporation and after the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Department, a show-cause notice Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 16 20:40:33 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20766/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/12/2023 undefined had been further issued to the present petitioner on 24.8.2023. It would also be relevant to mention here that similar show-cause notice had been to a total number of 8 employees, including the present petitioner and whereas since show-cause notice inter alia proposes to terminate the services of the employees without resorting to a departmental proceeding, four of the employees had approached this Court and vide an order dated 26.10.2023 this Court had inter alia observed, more particularly as per the consensus arrived at that the respondent Corporation shall take appropriate steps in accordance with Rule 9 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Dscipline and Appeals) Rules 1975, in furtherance of the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner as well as other similarly situated employees.
5.3. It is the case of the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Shah for the petitioner that NOC for appearing in the interview could not have been denied more particularly since as of now, no charge-sheet had been issued to the present petitioner, more particularly when the petitioner had not even approached this Court challenging the show- cause notice.
6. This petition is vehemently objected to by learned Advocate Mr.Naidu for the respondent Corporation, who would submit that while the prevalent practice for the Corporation not to issue NOC to employees for participating in selection process for a different employment, more particularly when a show-cause notice or a vigilance show-cause notice has been issued to such employees.
7. While considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, it would appear that the present petition does not require to be considered at all. The reason for the same would be that as Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 16 20:40:33 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20766/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/12/2023 undefined per Clause-12 of the Advertisement, a person serving in any Government/Semi-Government/Government Corporation/Company of the State Government etc., shall be permitted to apply directly to the GPSC and whereas it was further required of such employee to report fact of such application within a period of 7 days to his employer. The employer of the candidate was empowered to intimate to GPSC within a period of 30 days from the last date of the application about the employer not permitting the employee to participate in the selection process and whereas the GPSC upon receiving such an intimation would reject the candidature of the concerned employee. From the record and from the submissions made by learned Sr. Advocate it would appear that the present petitioner had never intimated to the Corporation about the applicant having applied to the selection process. It would appear that while the petitioner had submitted an application on 30.7.2021 and whereas instead of intimating to the Corporation about having applied, on 9.8.2021, the employee had requested the Corporation to grant him NOC for applying for the selection process. It appears that there was never any response to the said application. While that may be so, but in the considered opinion of this Court, the advertisement being very clear about the employee being required to intimate to his employer about the fact of the employee having applied to the selection process and the employer being empowered as per the advertisement itself to request for rejection of the candidature by refusing permission to the employee to apply within a period of 30 days from the last date of filing of the form as per the advertisement envisages an important right given to the employer to not permit an employee to participate in a selection process.
8. Considering the facts of the present case, it would have been open for the Corporation to reject the request of the petitioner or to directly intimate to GPSC not to consider the candidature of the petitioner since Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 16 20:40:33 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20766/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/12/2023 undefined the Corporation was of the opinion that the petitioner was not to be permitted to appear in the selection process. The petitioner having not complied with the conditions of the advertisement, the application of the petitioner suffers from a serious lacuna which could not be cured by any means whatsoever and whereas under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, there would be no requirement to look into the main issue as to whether the Corporation was required to provide NOC to the petitioner in absence of any departmental inquiry being initiated against the petitioner.
9. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petition, not being required to be entertained is hereby rejected. It is clarified that on the issue of law as noted herein above, this Court has not expressed any opinion whatsoever.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) V.V.P. PODUVAL Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 16 20:40:33 IST 2023