Gujarat High Court
Asmitaben Rayjibhai Damor vs District Development Officer on 6 May, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1534 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1536 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1881 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1879 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1852 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1873 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1875 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1874 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1871 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1872 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1877 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1876 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1878 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1884 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2162 of 2024
=====================================================
ASMITABEN RAYJIBHAI DAMOR & ORS.
Versus
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR DILIP B RANA(691) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
PETITION/APPEAL WITHDRAWN/DISMISSED for the
Petitioner(s) No. 2,3,4
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 7,8,9
MR ADITYA DAVDA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 5
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
MR ARTH V PARGHI(11292) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR VD PARGHI(568) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR. NISARG N JAIN(8807) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 4
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 06/05/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dilip B. Rana appearing for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Nisarg N. Jain appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda appearing for the respondent No.5, learned advocate Mr. V. D. Parghi and learned advocate Mr. Vanrajsinh Damor appearing for the private respondents in respective petitions.
2. Pursuant to the order dated 30.4.2025, notice was issued to newly added respondents and it was made returnable on 2.5.2025 and on 2.5.2025 the matter was adjourned to today i.e. on 6.5.2025 and learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Jain submitted that he has received instructions to appear on Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined behalf of newly added respondents and accordingly, the matter was taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Hence, RULE. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg N. Jain waives the service of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda waives the service of rule on behalf of respondent No.5, learned advocate Mr. V. D. Parghi and learned advocate Mr. Vanrajsinh Damor waives the service of rule on behalf of private respondents in respective petitions.
3. By way of these group of petitions, each of the petitioners have prayed for a direction against the respondent authorities to quash and set aside the illegal selection process undertaken by the authorities ignoring the rules and the objections filed by the petitioners along with required documents and have further prayed to finalize the merit list after considering the online applications submitted by the petitioners Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined and the documents / certificates uploaded with objections. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the appointment order issued in favour of the private respondents.
4. When the matter was taken up, learned advocate Mr. Dilip Rana appearing for the petitioners made it clear that he confines this group of petitions only to the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice as these petitions are glaring example of the fact that the respondents despite the rule provides for personal hearing and to follow the principles of natural justice have failed to observe the same and therefore, at this juncture, keeping all his rights and contentions to argue the matter on merits open at present, learned advocate Mr. Dilip Rana confines his submissions only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the matter was considered only on the basis of above submissions of learned advocate Mr. Dilip Rana.
Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined
5. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition can be summarized as under :-
5.1 The respondent authorities issued advertisement for filling up the vacancies of Aanganwadi Karyakars / Tedagar in the news paper 'Sandesh' dated 08.11.2023 on the basis of various terms and conditions stated in the advertisement. Pursuant to which the petitioners of each of the petitions made the application within the prescribed time limit for different parts of Jhalod Taluka as according to the petitioners, each of the petitioners are fulfilling requisite criteria.
5.2 On the basis of applications received, the respondents prepared a provisional merit list and waiting list for respective part on 20.12.2023. The petitioners upon preparation of merit list found that though their names were in the merit list but their merit position in the list were such that they were not in a position to secure the appointment on the basis of their Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined merit position in the provisional merit list and therefore, each of the petitioners submitted online objections along with the documents required to substantiate their objections as stated in the petition. The main objection raised by the respondent authority was with regard to Self Declaration Form which was allegedly not annexed along with the Application Form and scan copy of the photocopy was uploaded along with application instead of scan copy from the original.
5.3 Pursuant to the objections raised by the petitioners, the respondent No.2 issued letter on 31.12.2023 to the respective petitioners and directed the petitioners to remain present on 4.1.2024 for personal hearing.
However, when the petitioners remained present on 4.1.2024 instead of verifying the documents and considering the objections raised by the petitioners, the respondent did not give any personal hearing to the petitioners and asked Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined them to leave the office and thereafter, they communicated through a single line order to the petitioners about rejection of their objections. It is against that order that each of the present petitions are filed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Dilip Rana appearing for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the relevant portion of the Rules published by way of Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019 whereby the rules for Aanganwadi karyakars / Tedagar their standards of recruitment, honorarium, review and disciplinary rules were framed. The aforesaid Government Resolution was not annexed along with the petition but the same was tendered to the Court during the course of hearing by learned advocate Mr. Dilip Rana. According to learned advocate Mr. Dilip Rana, Rule 7.15 provides that upon publication of online merit list, if any of the candidate has any grievance about the publication of the online merit, within a period of ten days from the date of publication, he can apply for Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined redressal of his grievance through online mode. As the entire selection process was an online process, even appeal also would be through online mode only and any appeal through any other mode would not be considered. 6.1 Rule 7.17 provides that upon completion of ten days time limit to file the appeal, the Appellate Committee is required to hear the appellant personally and thereafter, they are required to upload their decision online. 6.2 By placing reliance upon Rule 7.17, learned advocate Mr. Dilip Rana submitted that Rule 7.17 specifically provides that after ten days from the last date of submission of online application, within a period of ten days, the Appellate Committee was required to hear the petitioners personally and thereafter only their decision could have been uploaded online. In the instant case, it is a specific case of the petitioners that though the respondents had issued notice for personal hearing to the Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined petitioners and for that they were asked to remain personally present on 4.1.2024. On 4.1.2024, the petitioners were not heard by the respondent No.2 and thereafter, without even recording the submissions of the petitioners at the time of personal hearing, which according to the petitioners was never given, the respondent No.2 has passed a single line order whereby the petitioners' online applications were rejected by the Appellate Committee. According to learned advocate Mr. Dilip Rana, when the rules specifically provides for personal hearing and is specifically alleged by the petitioners that he was not granted any personal hearing, coupled with the fact that the respondent authority has passed a one line order, the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Dilip Rana submitted that in case if the ground is not accepted by the Court then only learned advocate Mr. Dilip Rana would proceed further Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined and canvas other grounds and therefore, the aforesaid liberty was prayed for by learned advocate Mr. Dilip Rana and the same was granted at the time of hearing.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Jain appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 tried best to point out that the petitioners were heard. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Jain submitted that in fact it is not the case as canvassed by the petitioners that they found their names in the merit list but were not in a position to get appointment. According to learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Jain, the petitioners did not succeed in the merit list and therefore, there is no question of appointing them as their candidature was out-rightly rejected at the threshold and therefore, when even otherwise they were not qualified to be appointed, the petitioners have raised a flimsy ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
7.1 Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Jain tried to Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined point out from the order itself and the pleadings that the petitioners were issued notice on 31.12.2023 asking them to remain personally present for personal hearing on 4.1.2024 and thereafter, in the impugned order relevant Clause on which the petitioners application was rejected is already stated and therefore, the same would amount to not only considering the petitioners application but also would amount to passing a reasoned order as the petitioners were informed by the aforesaid order that on which ground the application has been rejected. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Jain submitted that the order is in a tabular form and one of the field of the tabular form, nature of objection is also stated which would indicate that the respondents have considered the objections raised by the petitioners objectively and thereafter only the same were rejected by giving reasons. Merely because an order is a single line order and in tabular form, it cannot be said that the order is a single line Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined nonspeaking order and in fact according to learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Jain, its a short order wherein the reasons are assigned in a capsule form and therefore, the same is an unreasoned order. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners were duly heard and after hearing them only the impugned order was passed and therefore, the same would not amount to violation of principles of natural justice. 7.2 Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Jain further submitted that the order under challenge is an administrative order and therefore, detailed reasoning are not required to be given by the authorities. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a nonspeaking order and the purpose of order under question is to inform the outcome of their personal hearing to the candidates on the basis of recruitment rules. Except for above submissions, no other submissions were made by learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Jain. Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined
8. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. Upon perusal of record, I found that Rule 7.17 of the GR dated 25.11.2019 governing the rules which is subsequently placed on record provides that the appeal committee has to take a decision after a period of ten days from the date on which the limitation for filing appeal is over after giving personal hearing to the appellant and to upload the order of decision taken and make it available online.
9. Rule 7.17 provides for giving personal hearing to the candidates and not merely the same is about deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner or the appellant when any rule provides for personal hearing, it goes without saying that the same is aimed at allowing the appellant to put forward his version in person before the authority and that also indicates that when personal hearing is provided in the rules, the same would be something more than merely making a representation or an appeal and Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined therefore, the respondents are duty bound to consider not just reasons stated in the appeal memo but also the grounds canvassed at the time of personal hearing. The decision making authority could as well said that the submissions of the appellants were in line with the averments made in the memo of appeal and no additional grounds were raised but that fact must come on record once the personal hearing is provided. In the instant case, the impugned orders in each of the petitions are absolutely silent about the submissions of the present petitioners. How those submissions were considered and how those submissions cannot be accepted. On the contrary, it is a specific case of the petitioners that though on 4.1.2024, they were called for personal hearing, they were not granted any opportunity, they were not heard at all and they were driven out without even allowing them to make their submissions and thereafter straightway the order was uploaded. Of course, those submissions made by learned Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined advocate for the petitioners can be said to be a disputed question of fact ordinarily but if the said submissions are considered in light of the order passed and more particularly when the order is absolutely silent about the submissions made by the present petitioners and by the impugned order by way of a single line order, the respondents have rejected the application/appeal of the petitioners, the said order is definitely an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the same does not record the submissions of the present petitioners. Merely because the petitioners were issued notice and they were asked to represent their case would not make the order perfect as if the same is passed after hearing the petitioners. When the rules have provided for observance of principles of natural justice, the same is required to be adhered to by the respondent authority in its true letter and spirit and they cannot make an eyewash by creating any illusion as if the rules are Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined complied with and petitioners were heard.
10. Considering the fact that it is the case of the respondents that the petitioners' candidature was out-rightly rejected and they were not even there in the merit list and therefore there is no question of giving them an appointment is concerned the same is the ground which is not a part of the impugned order and is coming up for the first time during the course of submissions of learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Jain and therefore, it can safely be presumed that the respondents have tried to improvise upon their order once the petition was filed to justify their order. The fact remains that the respondents have miserably failed in pointing out that at any point of time, Rule 7.17 was strictly followed by them except for issuance of notice for remaining present during the course of personal hearing. Accordingly, I do not have any hesitation to hold that the impugned order in each of the petitions in the appeal preferred by the present petitioners are passed in Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined violation of principles of natural justice as the same does not reflect the submissions of present petitioners during the course of personal hearing, any discussion about the same and a decision as to how the submissions of the present petitioners cannot be accepted. Accordingly, each of the petitions succeed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice only as this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and the matter was contested only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, impugned orders in each of the petitions are required to be quashed and set aside and are quashed and set aside accordingly. Respondents are directed to give fresh personal hearing to the petitioners pursuant to the appeals which are already filed and to pass a reasoned order and to upload it online.
11. This exercise is required to be completed within a period of two months from the date of order. Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1534/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined
12. It is clarified that this Court has not considered any other aspect on merit except for the aspect for violation of principles of natural justice. In view of above, all these petitions are allowed on a limited ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned orders in each of the petitions are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Pallavi Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:13:16 IST 2025