Gujarat High Court
Harendrasinh Laxmansinh Ramlavat & 7 vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 6 January, 2014
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sonia Gokani
C/LPA/959/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 959 of 2013
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11964 of 2012
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8266 of 2013
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 959 of 2013
================================================================
HARENDRASINH LAXMANSINH RAMLAVAT & 7....Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 8
LAW OFFICER BRANCH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
MR MEHUL S SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
MR JAIMIN GANDHI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No.1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 06/01/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Appellants original petitioners have challenged the judgment of the learned Singe Judge dated 5.11.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11964 of 2012.
2. Appeal arises in the following background:- Page 1 of 10 C/LPA/959/2013 ORDER
2.1 In response to an advertisement dated 16.3.2001 issued by the administration of District Court, Panchmahals for filling up the posts of Peon (Class-IV) in the District, all the appellants had applied at the relevant time. It is their case and which is not disputed that in the selection process undertaken pursuant to such advertisement, all of them were selected and placed in the select list by the competent authority. They were, however, not issued any appointment orders for a long time. In the meantime the selection process became subject matter of litigation in Special Civil Application No.3929 of 2009 where such selection process was challenged by one of the unsuccessful candidate in which certain interim orders were passed to which we would refer to later.
Eventually, the order was passed in January, 2011 by the learned Principal District Judge, Godhra. The appellants were granted provisional appointments to the post of Peons on a fixed salary of Rs.3,500/- per month.
3. It appears that not only the said District but in all Districts of the Gujarat State regular selection process for various posts of Class-III and IV was initiated by centralized recruitment process by the High Court of Gujarat. When such process was underway, apprehending that their services would be terminated to make way for the regularly selected Page 2 of 10 C/LPA/959/2013 ORDER candidates, the appellants filed Special Civil Application No.11964 of 2012 and prayed inter aila for regularization of their services. By way of interim relief they prayed that during the pendency of the petition, their services may not be terminated.
4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by the impugned judgment holding that the petitioners were appointed purely on temporary and ad hoc basis to work as Peons on the establishment of the District Court. In their appointment order, it was specifically mentioned that such appointments were temporary and ad hoc and would be liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons. In view of such position, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Against such judgment of the learned Single Judge,this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the appellants submitted that the appellants were selected through regular selection process. They were placed in select list prepared by the competent authority after conducting the full selection process. Some of the persons from the select list were also appointed on regular basis. In this respect our attention was drawn to one such appointment order dated 18.5.2009 issued in favour of one Vinubhai Somabhai Prajapati on the post of Page 3 of 10 C/LPA/959/2013 ORDER Peon on regular pay-scale. He submitted that 11 such appointments were made from such select list.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Shah for the High Court administration pointed out that the appellants petitioners would have no vested right for being appointed merely upon being included in the select list. Select List could not be operated because of the pending litigation. Our attention was drawn to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3929 of 2009 in this regard. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 3.7.2013 in Letters Patent Appeal No.794 of 2013 and connected appeals to point out that the legality and validity of the centralized recruitment process came to be challenged before the High Court and was upheld under the said decision.
7. Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, following features arise:-
1) That the appellants applied for the post of Peon (Class-
IV) in the establishment of the District Court, Panchmahals in response to the public advertisement dated 16.3.2000.
2) They were placed in the select list drawn by the competent authority but no regular appointments were issued Page 4 of 10 C/LPA/959/2013 ORDER in their favour.
3) Learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.3929 of 2009 on 14.5.2009 had passed interim order restraining the administration from operating the select list beyond Serial No.11. This was on the basis that when the advertisement was issued there were only 11 vacant posts of Peons. Previously, therefore, the district administration was permitted to operate the select list till Serial No.12.
8. Special Civil Application No.3929 of 2009 came to be disposed of finally by judgment dated 28.08.2012 observing as under:-
"8.00. At the outset, it is required to be noted that a grievance is made by the petitioners that even after a period of 50 years of establishment of this Court, Government Resolution of the year 1957 is followed for the recruitment in subordinate courts in the State in ClassIII and ClassIV. It is also true that as such the select lists / waiting lists were being prepared irrespective of vacant posts available at the time when the advertisements were issued and applications were invited and even the said waiting lists were being implemented for number of years. The petitioners are also justified in making grievance that the select lists in question are prepared in the year 2008 on the basis of applications invited in the year 2001 and in between number of candidates might have become eligible. However, from the Affidavitinreply filed on behalf of the concerned respondent inclusive of the High Court Administration, it appears that as such corrective measures are already taken and even draft recruitment rules are also proposed which is pending with the State Government for approval. It is also reported that as such the select list which are sought to be set aside are already scrapped by the High Court on its administrative side and fresh process for recruitments have been initiated on the basis of the Chamber decision of the High Court. Under the circumstances, now when the High Court administration has taken a decision to scrap all the select lists inclusive of the select lists in question, no further order is required to be passed with respect to the impugned select lists in question.Page 5 of 10 C/LPA/959/2013 ORDER
9.00. Now, so far as the prayer of the petitioners to direct the concerned respondents to include the name of the petitioners in the select lists is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be granted. No such direction can be granted straightway directing the concerned respondent authorities to include the name of the petitioners in the select list. As stated above, it is reported that fresh selection process has already been initiated and therefore, it will be open for the petitioners to apply for the same and their cases can be considered in accordance with law and on merits.
9.01. Now, so far as the prayer of the respective petitioners directing the concerned respondent authorities inclusive of the High Court administration and the State Government to frame Rules for appointment / recruitment of the employees in the subordinate Courts in the State in ClassII, ClassIII and ClassIV is concerned, as per the reply filed on behalf of the High Court, it is reported that draft rules are already proposed, however, there were some queries raised by the State Government which have been cleared and the same is under active consideration and pending with the State Government for approval and therefore, suitable direction can be issued to expedite the framing of the rules for recruitments of the staff in subordinate courts in the State in ClassII, ClassIII and Class IV.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, so far as the prayer of the petitioners to quash and set aside the impugned select lists is concerned, the same have become infructuous inasmuch as a decision has already been taken by the Chamber of the High Court to scrap all the select lists prepared by the District Courts in the State for recruitments. Even otherwise, no relief can be granted to the petitioners to quash and set aside the entire select lists / waiting lists as those who are already appointed pursuant to the impugned select lists are not joined as party respondents in these Special Civil Applications and therefore, in absence of them, the relief to quash and set aside the impugned select list, cannot be granted."
9. 11 persons who were appointed from the said select list were all ranking higher than the present appellants. No person placed below the present appellants from the select list was ever appointed regularly on the post of Peon.
10. It was only in the year 2011 that the district Page 6 of 10 C/LPA/959/2013 ORDER administration, which was required to appoint persons on ad- hoc basis to man the post of Peons, issued such orders in favour of the appellants. While doing so they were offered fixed salary of Rs.3,500/- per month. In the appointment orders, it was clearly specified that the same was purely ad hoc and temporary and liable to be terminated without notice or assigning any reason.
11. The entire centralized recruitment process came to be challenged before the High Court and validity of which came to be upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the said judgment dated 3.7.2013 in case of Y.P.Kumpavat and others vs. State of Gujarat and others .
12. In view of the above facts, we have no hesitation in upholding the view of the learned Single Judge. The appellants were never regularly appointed on any post. Their appointment orders were purely ad hoc and temporary and were liable to be terminated at any time. In contrast to several other appointment processes where even the initial selection process was not regularly undertaken, in case of the present appellant, they had responded to a public advertisement for regular appointments. To that extent, their contention that they were regularly selected and placed in select list seems quite justified. However, merely being placed in a select list Page 7 of 10 C/LPA/959/2013 ORDER does not result into any vested indefeasible right to appoint to the post in question. Long before they could be so appointed the entire selection process itself ran into legal controversies. Learned Single Judge permitted the district administration to appoint only 11 out of the selected candidates for the posts of Peon, rest of the Select list was frozen. Thus, the district administration had valid reasons for not operating the select list further or to make appointment from such select list.
13. We must not lose sight of the fact that the advertisement of the year 2000 was somewhat open ended. It invited applications not only for existing vacancies but also for the vacancies which may arise in future. The time period upto when such future vacancies would be considered was nowhere indicated in the advertisement. Be that as it may, during the interregnum, the High Court decided to undertake the selection and appointment procedure for Class-III and Class-IV posts of all the districts in a centralized manner. Such centralized recruitment process itself came to be challenged before the High Court. The High Court upheld validly thereof and dismissed the various petitions/Letters Patent Appeals.
14. The claim of the appointment is based solely on being placed in the select list. There are catena of decisions holding Page 8 of 10 C/LPA/959/2013 ORDER that merely being placed in the select list, does not give vested right to the candidates to appointment to the posts in question when there were valid reasons for not operating the select list further. Later when the selection process was undertaken in a centralized manner, legality thereof was also upheld by the High Court.
15. We see no scope for granting the relief to the appellants for being regularized on the posts in question. We are informed, later on the posts in question have already been filled up through regularly selected candidates pursuant to the centralized recruitment process. The appellants, who were engaged for a short period purely on ad hoc and temporary basis on fixed salary, cannot claim regularization to the posts in question de hors the rules.
16. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
CIVIL APPLICATION No.8266 of 2013 in LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.959 of 2013 In view of the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application does not survive. The same is disposed of accordingly.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) Page 9 of 10 C/LPA/959/2013 ORDER (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) SUDHIR Page 10 of 10