Gujarat High Court
Darshankumar Kantibhai Chaudhary vs State Of Gujarat on 26 October, 2021
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/LPA/915/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 915 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9001 of 2021
==========================================================
DARSHANKUMAR KANTIBHAI CHAUDHARY
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAMESHBHAI M PATEL(10094) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 26/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr.T.R.Mishra for the appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi for the respondent State and its authorities upon service of copy of the Letters Patent Appeal in advance.
2. Filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, this appeal is directed against order dated 5.8.2021 passed by learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge did not entertain and disposed of the petition of the appellant petitioner. The prayer in the main petition, to be precisely noticed is reproduced herein below.
"Directing the respondent authorities to declare result for the post of Supervisor - Instructor (Beauty Culture and Hair Dresses Group) pursuant to the Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 17 02:48:23 IST 2022 C/LPA/915/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021 advertisement No.178/2018-2019 of written as well as computer proficiency test conducted by respondent No.2 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to complete the process of recruitment pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement and post on the basis of prevailing Recruitment Rules on the date of issuance of advertisement."
3. It appears that for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Supervisor- Instructor (Beauty Culture and Hair Dresses Group) respondent No.2, the Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board issued advertisement No.161/2018-2019 to 180/2018-2019 covering different post in which advertisement No.178/2018-2019 was for the aforesaid category of post. The petitioners applied and participated in the process. The competitive examination was held as per the prescription in the advertisement on 11.7.2019. The result was declared. The names of the petitioners figured in the list of qualified candidates at serial Nos.9 and 25, as per the case of the petitioner.
3.1 It is stated that the petitioners also gave written examination whereafter they were called for competitive proficiency test. In other words, it was averred that virtually entire selection process was over, the stage of offering actual appointment, however did not reach. The petitioners have contented that they expected the issuance of the appointment order in their favour.
3.2 The respondents however cancelled and suspended the entire recruitment process, from the communication dated 1.7.2021 addressed by the Deputy Secretary of the respondent No.2 Board to one of the petitioner (Annexure E at Page 60) in the compilation of the petition indicates that due to some Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 17 02:48:23 IST 2022 C/LPA/915/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021 proposed changes in the Rules, the instant process of recruitment was halted and decided not to be carried out. This decision of the authorities gave cause of action to the petitioners to file the writ petition.
3.3 It could be noticed from the prayer clause reproduced above that the petitioners wanted the authorities to declare the result for the post of Supervisor- Instructor (Beauty Culture and Hair Dresses Group) pursuant to the advertisement of written as well as computer proficiency test which was not declared, further prayer was to complete the process of recruitment under the prevalent Rules. The prayer rested there. It is to be noted that the petitioners were not given any appointment, even the result of the computer proficiency test and the written test were not declared. The stage which obtained in the process of recruitment was only the publication of list of candidates qualified for computer proficiency test. It is at this stage that the decision to cancel the process was taken. In any case, the authorities decided to drop the recruitment process.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner raised submission that the cancellation of recruitment process in the midst and certain stages were exhausted was arbitrary and it deprived the petitioners right to be appointed. He contended that the process ought to have been completed under the existing rules. In support of his submissions and pressing for grant of the prayer made in the writ petition, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Arjun Singh Rathore & Others Vs. B.N.Chaturvedi & Others, [(2007) 11 SCC 605]. Yet another decision also of the Supreme Court in Sandeep Singh Vs. State Of Haryana, [(2002) 10 SCC 549] Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 17 02:48:23 IST 2022 C/LPA/915/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021 was pressed into service.
4.1 On going through the said decisions, it could be noticed at the outset that in Arjun Singh Rathore (supra), the question before the Court was about the occurring of vacancies prior to the promulgation of the new Rules. It was held that vacancies were required to be filled up according to the old Rules of 1988 even though the interviews were held in the year 2000 when the new Rules had already been notified. The entire context of facts and issue involved were different in said decision and has no bearing with the facts of the present case.
4.2 In Sandeep Singh (supra) the Supreme Court was concerned with the number of post to be filled in light of the vacancies available. It was held that the vacancies available up to the date of interview should be filled up. The facts of this case also stands completely diversed from the issue involved in the controversy.
5. It is trite position of law that candidate does not acquire any right until he is actually appointed. Even the placement in the select list or wait list will not result into any enforceable right to be appointed. Here the process of recruitment was cancelled for the reasons which the authorities deemed appropriate to act upon. The employer is the master of conducting the recruitment process. It is entirely his discretion if for some reason, the process is to be stopped. We find in this case that for valid reasons the process of recruitment came to be discontinued at the stage obtained above when only the list of candidates qualified for computer proficiency test was notified.
Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 17 02:48:23 IST 2022C/LPA/915/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021 5.1 The Court cannot force the employer to proceed and
complete the process when no rights of the any of the candidates have accrued, nor any final list was published in the recruitment process.
5.2 Additionally, it could be further seen from the paragraph No.3 of the impugned order that learned advocate for the petitioners then appearing before learned Single Judge conceded that in view of the cancellation of the advertisement, itself and the process having been discontinued, the petitioners would not be able to seek their appointment.
6. We find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners were not entitled to get any relief prayed for in the Special Civil Application. The dismissal of the petition was proper.
7. The appeal is summarily dismissed.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J) (ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE,J) Manshi Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 17 02:48:23 IST 2022