Gujarat High Court
Parmar Satishkumar Ranchhodbhai vs State Of Gujarat Thro Secretary & on 30 April, 2013
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
PARMAR SATISHKUMAR RANCHHODBHAI....Petitioner(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY C/SCA/17182/2012 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17182 of 2012 ============================================================== PARMAR SATISHKUMAR RANCHHODBHAI....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY & 1....Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance: MR AS SUPEHIA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR RASHESH RINDANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ============================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 30/04/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Supehia, learned advocate for petitioner and Mr. Rindani, learned AGP for respondent.
2. Leave to amend the cause title so as to implead Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police is granted.
3. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the petition is required to be heard at notice stage.
4. With consent of learned AGP, the petition is taken up for final decision today.
5. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed that:
14(A) Quashing and setting aside letter dt.4.9.2012 and directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lok Rakshak with consequential benefits.
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the respondents may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lok Rakshak.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as an unarmed Police Lok Rakshak vide order dated 04.09.2006 and after completion of the training, the petitioner joined duty as such on 30.06.2007 at Danilimade Police Station in Ahmedabad city. Before the petitioner s appointment as Lok Rakshak one FIR being C.R.No.261/2004 came to be filed against the petitioner before Mehsana Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable u/ss. 323, 324, 325, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and u/s. 135(1) of B.P.Act which culminated into Criminal Case No.1024 of 2005.
6.1. The petitioner has averred that while the aforesaid case was pending the petitioner got appointment as a Lok Rakshak on 04.09.2006.
6.2. The petitioner has further averred that on account of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner the petitioner came to be removed from service on 30.08.2007.
6.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges vide judgment dated 21.01.2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahesana.
6.4. After being acquitted, the petitioner made a representation on 04.02.2008. On 19.02.2008, the petitioner requested respondent No.2 to reinstate him in view of his acquittal from the charges. However, on 05.05.2008 the petitioner received reply from the Joint Police Commissioner, inter alia, stating that while filling-up the Shakh Patra since the petitioner has not disclosed true and correct facts in column no.10 of Shakh Patra which obliges the petitioner to fill-up the details regarding pendency of criminal case against him, he cannot be reinstated.
6.5. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision the petitioner preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6784 of 2012 inter alia praying for reinstatement.
6.6. However, the said Special Civil Application No.6784 of 2012 came to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
7. Around that time another advertisement seems to have been issued in response to which the petitioner again applied for the post of Gram Rakshak and he was selected. However, subsequently he was informed that though there was no defect and/or irregularity in his second application, however, appointment cannot be granted to him though he was selected because of his mistake/irregularity on previous occasion (of not mentioning the details of the case which was then pending against him). The respondent, however, acknowledged that in present attempt/application there is no mistake. s
8. In light of the peculiar facts of the case, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to submit a fresh representation to the respondents for considering his request in light of the peculiar facts and applicable decision by the Hon ble Court.
9. From the facts it has emerged that in response to an advertisement issued on earlier occasion, the petitioner had submitted his application/candidature. After selection and recruitment procedure was over and while he was selected, subsequently his selection was cancelled on the ground that in his application form the petitioner had not filled up column No.10 wherein the candidate was supposed to give details about any criminal proceedings instituted or pending against him. It appears that it came to the notice of the respondents that certain criminal case was filed against the petitioner and was pending at the relevant time. However, in the application form the petitioner had not disclosed said details and had not filled up the column with appropriate details.
10. When the said fact came to the notice of the respondents, petitioner s selection was cancelled.
11. Aggrieved by the said decision of the respondents the petitioner had preferred Special Civil Application No.6784 of 2012. The said petition was not entertained by the Court and was disposed of by the Court on ground of delay. The Hon ble Court (Coram: Hon ble Mr. Justice K.S.Jhaveri) passed order dated 28.09.2012 wherein the Court has observed that:
3.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has made a prayer only to set aside the order of the year 2007 and petition is moved before this Court on 5.5.2012.
4. In my view, in view of the several decision of this Court more particularly in view of the following 4 decisions, it will not be appropriate to allow this petition which is filed belatedly:
(1)Maniben Devraj Shah V/s. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai reported in (2012) 5 SCC 157.(2)
Shiv Dass V/s. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2007 SC 1330;(3)
C.Jacob v/s. Director of Geology and Mining and Another reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115;(4)
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. V/s. Dugai Kumar reported in 2008(10) Scale
449.
12. Thus, while considering the said petition the Court had not examined the petitioner s dispute/grievance on merits but the petition was dismissed only on ground of limitation. It appears that the petitioner did not challenge the said decision by way of appeal.
13. It also appears that in the interregnum, another advertisement inviting applications/candidatures was issued by the respondents and petitioner has submitted his application in response to the said fresh advertisement as well. When the petitioners said application in response to the subsequent advertisement was taken up for consideration, the competent authority brought in picture the earlier incident and did not entertain petitioner s application and rejected his candidature only on the ground that on earlier occasion while submitting his application petitioner had not disclosed the relevant facts.
14. It is pertinent that so far as fresh application in response to second advertisement is concerned, there is no defect in petitioner s application and it was complete in all respect.
15. It is not the case of the respondent that even in petitioner s fresh application in response to second advertisement the petitioner had submitted defective application and/or he had not disclosed any relevant facts.
16. It is only on ground of the past incident that the respondent did not entertain the petitioner s second application in response to second/fresh advertisement and rejected the same.
17. Aggrieved by the said decision dated 04.09.2012 the petitioner has preferred present petition.
18. Having regard to the possibility that petitioner s chance of getting employment may be delayed, Mr. Supehia, learned advocate for petitioner submitted that the petitioner will make fresh representation to the competent authority wherein the petitioner will mention all details and will request the authorities to not bring in picture the past incident and to not reject his application/candidature only on the ground of past incident. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in view of the position settled by the decision by the High Court and Hon ble Apex Court the petitioner s application could not have been rejected even on previous occasion on the ground on which it came to be rejected and in any case in fresh application in response to second advertisement, the said past incident cannot be and could not have been brought in picture particularly when there is no defect in petitioner s application and when the petitioner is otherwise qualified in all respect.
19. Since, the petitioner wants to make fresh representation with all necessary details and with supporting material, for that purpose learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that he does not press this petition and withdraws this petition with a view to making fresh representation to the respondent authorities.
20. In view of the said submission by learned counsel for petitioner, the petition is disposed of.
21. It would be open to the petitioner to make fresh representation mentioning all relevant details with factual as well as legal contention and to also rely on supporting decisions by High Court and Hon ble Apex Court.
22. If and when such application/representation is submitted, the competent authority will expeditiously consider the same and after taking into account the details mentioned in the application/representation as well as the decisions relied on by the petitioner and after taking into consideration the said decisions, pass appropriate speaking and reasoned order and convey the same to the petitioner.
23. Such process may be completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 6 weeks after the representation along with certified copy of this order is received by the competent authority.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Jani 8