Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shailesh Ramanalal Dodiya on 26 September, 2018
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: Harsha Devani, A.S. Supehia
C/LPA/1018/2018 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1018 of 2018
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22493 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law No
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHAILESH RAMANALAL DODIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.UTKARSH SHARMA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MR RAJESH P MANKAD(2637) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Page 1 of 7
C/LPA/1018/2018 JUDGMENT
Date : 26/09/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 08.01.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in the above referred Special Civil Application, whereby the learned Singe Judge has directed the respondentsappellants to give appointment order to the petitioner within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
2. The brief facts necessary for appreciating the issue involved are as under: 2.1 An advertisement was published by GPSC(Gujarat Public Service Commission) pursuant to the requisition of the State Government dated 16.02.1998 for selection of 22 candidates of Lecturer of Botany in Government College.
2.2 The certificate issued by the Commissioner of Higher Education clearly states that the requisition was for 22 posts of Lecturer of Botany, ClassII.
2.3 Again an advertisement dated 15.06.1998 was issued by GPSC in Sandesh Daily News Paper inviting application for the post of Botany Lecturer for 22 posts.
2.4 The GPSC vide letter dated 12.10.2000 recommended total 16 candidates to be appointed pursuant to the requisition and advertisement.
2.5 Against 22 posts which came to be advertised, 11 Page 2 of 7 C/LPA/1018/2018 JUDGMENT posts were of general category all 11 candidates were recommended, against 7 posts of SEBC four candidates were recommended, against one post of SC one candidate was recommended, as against 3 posts of ST no candidate was found suitable and no requisition was therefore made. Therefore, in all 16 candidates were recommended by GPSC as against 22 posts which came to be advertised.
3. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellantState - original respondent no.1 has submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that merely because the petitioner was at Sr.No.2 in the waiting list there was no right in favour of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer of Botany, Class II, as contended by the petitionerRespondent.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in considering the issue of vacancies in the SC Category right from the Year 199899 as the issue of vacancy had nothing to do with the operation of waiting list more particularly, in the present case, Gujarat Public Service Commission(GPSC) had recommended 16 candidates, who accepted the appointment.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in not giving any reasons for appointment of the petitioner despite the fact that the petitioner was at waiting list at Sr.No.2, and therefore, also the order passed Page 3 of 7 C/LPA/1018/2018 JUDGMENT by the learned Single Judge requires to be quashed and setaside, as the same is unreasoned order.
6. Mr.Rajesh Mankad, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the GPSC i.e. respondent no.2 has recommended only one candidate assuring that there is only one reserved post for SC is available. This assumption is wrong. Actually, there are 4 reserved posts available against which 3 Scheduled Caste candidates are selected by the GPSC. He has submitted that despite the interim orders passed by this Court, no information is provided by the state or by the GPSC about the filling up of the post by the SC candidate. He has asserted that no SC candidate was appointed on the post meant for such category, and hence the respondent no.1 who was the only candidate available in that category who was required to be appointed.
7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
8. During the pendency of the writ petition, on 19.12.2012, an interimorder came to be passed by this Court, which is reproduced as under: "1. Heard Mr.D.P.Vora,learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Roopal R.Patel, learned advocate for the GPSC and Ms.Jyoti Mehta Assistant Government Pleader for the State.
2. It is submitted learned advocate for the Page 4 of 7 C/LPA/1018/2018 JUDGMENT petitioner that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. He had participated in the selection process for the post of Lecturer of Boteny, pursuant advertisement No.28/98 99 issued by GPSC, wherein one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste (Male Candidate).
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.D.P.Vora has raised two fold contentions. Firstly it is contended that the post reserved for Scheduled Caste male candidate ought to have been more than one. He has also contended that even one post which was reserved for Scheduled Caste male candidate is also not filled as per his instructions. For the time being GPSC and State both are called upon to explain as to whether, one post which was reserved for Scheduled Caste male candidate, is filled in or not. For this purpose, both learned advocates for the respondents seek time. Other question shall be gone into subsequently, if required.
4. List on 11th January,2013."
9. As observed herein above, by the interimorder dated 19.12.2012, this court had specifically directed the appellantauthorities to explain, as to whether one post which was reserved for Scheduled Caste male candidate, is filled or not. Thereafter, after several adjournments, another order was passed Page 5 of 7 C/LPA/1018/2018 JUDGMENT by this court on 02.07.2013, wherein, once again, the respondents were directed to furnish the information regarding availability of vacancies meant for Schedule Caste category. The present GPSC had filed a reply in response to the aforesaid order and it was stated that the present respondent - original petitioner was selected and was kept in waiting list at Sr.No.2. It is also not disputed that against the 22 vacancies, which were advertised only 16 posts were recommended to be filled up. No reason is put forward by the appellant authorities for not filling up 22 posts. The appellant is blissfully silent on the aspect of only recommending 16 names from the select list. It was the case of the petitioner in writpetition that since the aforesaid Scheduled Caste category was not filled up, and he was at Sr.No.2 in the waiting list, the authorities should have issued him the appointment order. The learned Single Judge, after noticing of the aforesaid aspect, has directed the State Government to issue appointment letter to the petitioner - present respondent no.1.
10. In the opinion of this Court, since the appellant authorities have miserably failed in providing the exact information pursuant to the impugned orders passed by this Court on 19.12.2012 and 02.07.2013 regarding filling up of the vacancy by Scheduled Caste candidate, no infirmity can be found to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in issuing such directions. The judgment and order dated 08.01.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge does Page 6 of 7 C/LPA/1018/2018 JUDGMENT not call for any interference and the present appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No orders as to costs.
11. Consequently, the Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of, accordingly.
Sd/-
(HARSHA DEVANI, J) Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Girish Page 7 of 7