Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Namrata Rajendrabhai Joshi vs Commissioner on 15 January, 2016

Author: Sonia Gokani

Bench: Sonia Gokani

                    C/SCA/801/2016                                                 JUDGMENT




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 801 of 2016



         FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


         HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
         ==========================================================

         1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
               the judgment ?

         2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

         3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
               judgment ?

         4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
               as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
               order made thereunder ?

         ==========================================================
                         NAMRATA RAJENDRABHAI JOSHI....Petitioner(s)
                                              Versus
                     COMMISSIONER, HIGH EDUCATION OFFICE....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR. JAIMIN R DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         MS SHRUTI PATHAK, AGP for the State.
         ==========================================================
                    CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
                                 Date : 15/01/2016
                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1.  The   petitioner   has   challenged   the   communication   dated  08.12.2015 issued by the respondent authority whereby the petitioner's  services as a Librarian is sought to be terminated. The following factual  matrix would be necessary for the adjudication of the issue raised before  this   Court   by   the   petitioner   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   of  India.


                                                 Page 1 of 7

HC-NIC                                        Page 1 of 7      Created On Tue Jan 19 01:35:15 IST 2016
                    C/SCA/801/2016                                                 JUDGMENT



2. The petitioner was serving as a Librarian in different colleges for 5  years. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 29th April 2015 for 36 posts of  Librarian   (Class­III),   online   applications   were   invited.   The   petitioner  applied for the said post, and after undergoing the recruitment process  was selected. Her name appeared in the merit list and also received an  appointment letter dated 7th August 2015. She reported to duty on 14th  August 2015,  and after verifying all her testimonials, she continued to  serve since then.

3. After about four months' period, she received the impugned notice  dated  26th  November   2015,  whereby her  services   as  a  Librarian  were  sought   to   be   terminated   on   the   ground   that   the   appointment   was   in  contravention of the General Administration Department Circular. She  filed a reply to the said notice vide communication dated 7th December  2015. However, when she apprehended termination of her services, she  approached this Court by preferring the present petition.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the advertisement published by  the respondent did not refer to the Circular dated 22nd May 1997 bearing  No.C­RR/1096/2213/G2. In absence of any such reference to the said  Circular, to terminate her services on the strength of the same would be  unsustainable.  It is  also  her   say that  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  appointment letter also does not endorse such termination. Therefore,  Page 2 of 7 HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Tue Jan 19 01:35:15 IST 2016 C/SCA/801/2016 JUDGMENT the   present   petition   is   seeking   the   quashment   of   the   order   dated   7th  December 2015 passed by the respondent relieving her from her services  on 10th December 2015.

5. On  issuance  of  the  notice,   Ms.  Shruti  Pathak,   learned  Assistant  Government   Pleader   appeared  for   the   State.   Although  no  affidavit­in­ reply is brought on record, the petition is contested severely.

6. Learned   advocate   Mr.  Jaimin  Dave  appearing   for  the   petitioner  has urged that the petitioner when had been appointed on clearing the  written   examination   and   after   undergoing   the   entire   process   of  recruitment, to terminate her services by issuing the impugned notice  dated 26th  November 2015 is an act arbitrary and de hors the provisions  of   law.   Moreover,   in   absence   of   any   reference   to   the   General  Administration   Department   Circular   dated   22nd  May   1997,   the  termination of the services of the petitioner on the strength thereof also  deserves indulgence of the Court.

7. Ms.Shruti   Pathak,   learned   Assistant   Government   Pleader,   on  instructions   and   on   the   basis   of   the   notice   and   the   final   order   had  insisted that for general category candidates, 19 posts were available,  Page 3 of 7 HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Tue Jan 19 01:35:15 IST 2016 C/SCA/801/2016 JUDGMENT out of which 7 were reserved for women candidates. In the select list  from Sr. No.1 to 19 already 9 women candidates  were included, and  therefore, there would be no requirement of reservation by allocating  more posts to the woman candidates. Purely on a mistake, the petitioner  was appointed, and therefore, the notice dated 26th November 2015 was  issued   on   7th  December   2015.   He   has   urged   that   it   was   a   mistaken  calculation of total posts meant for women candidates and that was the  reason   why   her   services   needed   to   be   terminated.   He   has   further  contended   that   all   the   Government   Resolutions,   Administrative  Instructions are not necessary to be quoted in the advertisement. 

8. At   the   outset,   if   the   notice   issued   on   26th  November   2015   is  considered, it reflects that in the general category candidates, 5 male  and 7 women candidates were found suitable. Thereafter, 7 seats were  earmarked for reservation of women candidates. 33% of the posts were  meant for the women candidates and once in the concerned category if  such percentage is already maintained, that will not give rise to any need  for adding more women candidates. From the total number of 19 posts,  when 9 women candidates were already forming part of the select list,  additional   numbers   were   not   to   be   added   by   way   of   reservations.  However, purely by way of a mistake, the  addition  was made, which  included the present petitioner, and therefore, opportunity was given to  Page 4 of 7 HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Tue Jan 19 01:35:15 IST 2016 C/SCA/801/2016 JUDGMENT her as to why her name should not be deleted and her appointment be  cancelled. 

9. Reference is also necessary to the General Administrative Circular  dated   22nd  May   1997.   The   requirement   is   in   the   form   of   issues   and  clarifications. Issue No.2 says as to who should be allotted the post if on  the reserved post a woman candidate is not available. The explanation is  that it can be made available to a male candidate of the very category  and that if a male candidate is not available, it can go to the general  category candidate. Issue No.7 raises the question as to how the reserved  posts should be calculated if already women candidates are selected on  merit. A clarification says that the objective of the Government is to fill  in   minimum   30%   of   the   posts   by   women   candidates.   If   already   30%  women are selected on merit, then the remaining percentage of posts  shall have to be filled in. In other words, if 30% posts are already filled  in by women candidates in regular course on merit, there may not be  any necessity for giving further posts to women candidates by way of  reservation. 

10. It is to be noted that there is no challenge to this Circular of the  General Administration Department. The only contention raised is that it  was not forming part of the advertisement. In the opinion of this Court,  Page 5 of 7 HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Tue Jan 19 01:35:15 IST 2016 C/SCA/801/2016 JUDGMENT it   is   not   at   all   necessary   for   the   respondent   State   to   publish   every  Government   Resolution   and   administrative   instruction   in   the  advertisement inviting applications for filling up a particular post. Once  appointed   in   the   Government   service,   all   the   rules,   regulations,  resolutions,   administrative   instructions,   etc.   would   apply   to   the  concerned   employee.   Therefore,   the   contention   raised   by   the   learned  advocate appearing for the petitioner that the Government Resolution or  Circular which does not find place in the advertisement would have no  applicability cannot be countenanced. 

11. Adverting   to   the   facts   of   the   instant   case,   undisputedly   the  appointment of the present petitioner on the post of Librarian was made  after having cleared the written examination. It is unfortunate that she  had left the  post of Librarian to join the  services  of the Government.  However, that may not be a ground for the Court to intervene and quash  the   notice   dated   26th  November   2015   and   the   order   passed   by   the  respondent authority on 7th December 2015. The order is in accordance  with   law.   It   admits   that   inadvertently   the   appointment   was   given   in  disregard to the fact that already 9 women candidates were included in  the 19 posts meant for the general category. It is not the case of the  petitioner that the action of termination of her services is malafide. 





                                                  Page 6 of 7

HC-NIC                                         Page 6 of 7      Created On Tue Jan 19 01:35:15 IST 2016
                     C/SCA/801/2016                                                  JUDGMENT



12. It is expected of the State to be vigilant and careful while finalizing the  select list. It is extremely unfortunate that on leaving her services she joined the  Government   service   and   then   after   four   months   of   service   such   order   of  termination   came   to   be   made.   However,   when   the   respondent   State   could  establish   that   appointment   to   the   petitioner   was   given   purely   on   wrong  calculation of the reserved posts meant for women and by wrong interpretation  of reservation policy meant for women employees, no interference is needed.  Moreover, the order impugned has been passed after giving due opportunity to  the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, therefore also the petition does not  deserve   to   be   entertained.   The   petitioner   if   aggrieved   by   the   action   or  inadvertence of the Government machinery she can avail the legal remedies for  that purpose, if she so chooses. The present petition, however, being devoid of  any merits, deserves dismissal, and it is dismissed accordingly.

(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) ali Page 7 of 7 HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Tue Jan 19 01:35:15 IST 2016