Gujarat High Court
Ankur Rathi S/O Sureshpal Rathi vs Central Industrial Security Force & 2 on 12 June, 2017
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.N. Karia
C/SCA/10983/2017 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10983 of 2017
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Sd/
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No
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 as No
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=============================================
ANKUR RATHI S/O SURESHPAL RATHI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & 2....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR GM JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 12/06/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order directing the respondents to call the petitioner for medical examination as per his merit position in the list of shortlisted candidates prepared by the respondents in the recruitment process of LDCE2015 Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Fri Aug 18 07:47:15 IST 2017 C/SCA/10983/2017 JUDGMENT and offer him appointment, if he succeeds in the same.
[2.0] Facts leading to the present petition in nutshell are as under:
[2.1] That the petitioner is working as Constable / G.D. Since 12.10.2008. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had taken the training at Behror, Rajasthan and thereafter, he was posted at Nuclear Fuel Complex, at Hyderabad and thereafter at Bhavini Kalpakkam, Tamilnadu and thereafter, at Group Head Quarter, at Odhav, Ahmedabad. That on 29.09.2015, respondent No.1 issue a notice for recruitment of Assistant SubInspector (Executive) through LDCE2015, inviting applications from eligibile departmental candidates for filling up of 34 vacancies (28 unreserved, 4 SC and 2 ST) in CISF. That the petitioner applied for the same. The petitioner gave the written test that was conducted on 10.01.2016. The petitioner was called for physical endurance test. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that though in the advertisement it was specifically mentioned that there was no vacancy for OBC, 45 OBC candidates were called for PET and PST. The petitioner cleared the sme. The name of the petitioner was declared in the list of shortlisted candidates and the petitioner was shown at Sr.No.37. That the petitioner cleared both, PET and PST. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that out of 36 candidates whose names appeared above the petitioner, at least 10 candidates had not cleared the PET/PST and therefore, the petitioner was expecting that he will be called for medical fitness test. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that out of 103 + 45 candidates, 34 were called for medical test by the respondents.
7 candidates could not clear the medical test. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that last appointment was given in November 2016 and all the selected candidates were sent for training in November 2016. According to the petitioner, still 6 posts remained unfilled in the said recruitment process and therefore, the petitioner being at Sr.No.37 was Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Fri Aug 18 07:47:15 IST 2017 C/SCA/10983/2017 JUDGMENT required to be called for medical test. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner submitted the representation on 16/18.01.2017 pointing out that inspite of vacancies remained unfilled, the petitioner is not called for the medical examination test and offered the appointment and therefore, the petitioner requested to send the petitioner for medical examination and offer the appointment. That by impugned order the representation of the petitioner has been turned down. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application.
[3.0] We have heard Shri G.M. Joshi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
At the outset it is required to be noted that petitioner was informed by the impugned communication dated 30.01.2017 that the request of the petitioner to send him to medical examination and to offer him appointment has been turned down / rejected on the ground that unfilled vacancies have been carried forward to the subsequent recruitment i.e. for the year 2016 and therefore, request of the petitioner now to appoint him on such unfilled vacancy cannot be acceded to. That despite the above, the petitioner has preferred the present petition in the month of June 2017. In the meantime the new recruitment process for the vacant post including the vacancies which were carried forward has begun. It is reported that even the petitioner has also participated in the subsequent recruitment process for the year 2016. Therefore, once the vacancies on which the petitioner is requesting for appointment has already been carried forward long back and the said vacancies are already advertised for the recruitment i.e. for the year 2016 and number of other candidates have applied for the said posts / vacancies, to consider the request of the petitioner at this stage now would affect the subsequent recruitment process and may affect the rights of the candidates / applicants who had applied in the subsequent recruitment Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Fri Aug 18 07:47:15 IST 2017 C/SCA/10983/2017 JUDGMENT i.e. for the year 2016. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner had also applied again in the subsequent recruitment process i.e. for the year 2016.
[4.0] Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present petition now and at this stage. Under the circumstances, present petition deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/ (M.R. SHAH, J.) Sd/ (B.N. KARIA, J.) Ajay Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Fri Aug 18 07:47:15 IST 2017